What were the various investment objectives financed by the additional off-budget money introduced into the economy since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic?
What were the key priorities and effects of the application of public financial aid programs financed with additional extra-budgetary money introduced into the economy?
What were the key priorities and effects of using state financial aid programs under the so-called anti-crisis interventionist activities financed with additional extra-budgetary money introduced into the economy through covid programs and earmarked funds?
What were the different purposes of financing specific anti-crisis measures that were identified as priorities during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic?
What anti-crisis economic processes were activated by the extra-budgetary introduction of a large amount of additional money into the economy, which resulted, among others, in a significant increase in inflation (from 2021) and an increase in the hidden debt of the state's public finance system (from 2020)? What are the economic effects if the extra money finances mainly an increase in consumption compared to an increase in investment?
He hereby proposes a discussion on the issue of extra-budgetary introduction of additional money into the economy as part of government covid programs and funds, financing specific goals recognized as priorities of anti-crisis measures and the level of debt of the state's public finance system. In the country where I operate under the so-called covid funds, well over PLN 200 billion of additional money was introduced into the economy off-budget, which did not have parity in the goods and services produced. This was no exception to the anti-crisis measures of economic state interventionism used during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic. As part of these anti-crisis measures of economic state interventionism, various financial support programs were used in individual countries, differing in their functionality and impact on the macroeconomics of the national economy. In some countries, such as Poland, the effects were mainly pro-inflationary and generated mainly by an increase in consumption. In Poland, the simplest solutions of this kind have generated a particularly high level of core inflation and a high level of loss of purchasing power of money that citizens receive in salaries, even taking into account the wage increases for employed employees applied by entrepreneurs. The anti-crisis measures of state economic interventionism implemented in Poland during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in the formula of mainly government programs, the so-called Anti-Crisis Shields consisting mainly in the transfer of public financial aid to commercially operating business entities, under which the largest amount of money from the public finance system was allocated by the government to non-repayable subsidies transferred to companies and enterprises in the form of subsidies to employees' salaries and refinancing fixed costs of business activity. The purpose of this type of the simplest and most primitive anti-crisis solution was to limit the scale of employment reduction and the scale of bankruptcy of business entities caused by scientifically unjustified, large-scale lockdowns imposed on selected sectors of the economy and the so-called. national quarantines. Unfortunately, the real level of unemployment was still growing during the pandemic, despite the fact that the statistics of the Central Statistical Office did not show it, because a significant part of entrepreneurs, in order to receive the aforementioned non-repayable subsidies, reduced the employment of employees from e.g. full-time to part-time. In addition, this type of anti-crisis measures of economic state intervention, applied in the simplest and most primitive formula, did not motivate companies and enterprises to implement pro-development investments. However, in some other countries, the mechanism of the applied anti-crisis actions of state economic interventionism was much more investment and pro-development, and even pro-climate and pro-environmental. For example, in the most economically and technologically developed countries of Europe, such as in Germany, the anti-crisis measures of economic state interventionism used during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic had to a large extent precisely this type of investment, pro-development, pro-climate and pro-environmental character . In Poland, this extra money was only unproductively consumed and generated a restoration of consumption to pre-coronavirus levels and an increase in inflation from 2021. In Germany, additional money was allocated to investments, in addition to green investments, i.e. the implementation of the key anti-crisis assumption, Keynesian state interventionism, taking into account the issue of achieving sustainable development goals, accelerating the processes of green transformation of the economy, i.e. pragmatic, pro-social and at the same time pro-climate and pro-environmental measures were applied approach in the field of anti-crisis and pro-development activities. In Poland, however, the additional, printed, anti-crisis money introduced into the economy as part of off-budget Covid funds was consumed, generated another wave of economic downturn resulting from growing inflation, and contributed to an increase in the real debt of the public finance system, although hidden from the above-mentioned prudential indicators. In addition, due to the government slowing down the process of green transformation of the energy sector in recent years, more than 3/4 of electricity and heat in Poland is still generated from dirty combustion power generation based on the combustion of hard coal and lignite, which resulted in a crisis that was particularly costly for Polish citizens energy in 2022. Therefore, the anti-crisis socio-economic policy programs applied in individual countries during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic were significantly diversified in many respects, including issues recognized by governments as priorities and key investment objectives financed with additional anti-crisis extra-budgetary money introduced into economy. In some countries, it was noticed that during the pandemic there is a possibility of accelerating the processes of pro-environmental, pro-climate, green transformation of the economy and this opportunity was taken advantage of. On the other hand, unfortunately, there are still countries, including EU Member States, such as Poland, in which the priorities of the anti-crisis, monetarist, historically large-scale economic state interventionism completely ignored the issue of emerging opportunities, including the financial possibilities of accelerating the processes pro-environmental, pro-climate, green transformation of the economy.
In view of the above, I am addressing the Honorable Community of scientists and researchers with the following question: What were the different purposes of financing specific anti-crisis measures that were identified as priorities during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic? What anti-crisis economic processes were activated by the extra-budgetary introduction of a large amount of additional money into the economy, which resulted, among others, in a significant increase in inflation (from 2021) and an increase in the hidden debt of the state's public finance system (from 2020)? What are the economic effects if the extra money finances mainly an increase in consumption compared to an increase in investment? What were the key priorities and effects of applying public financial aid programs under the so-called anti-crisis interventionist activities financed with additional extra-budgetary money introduced into the economy through covid programs and earmarked funds? What were the various investment objectives financed by the additional off-budget money introduced into the economy since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic?
What is your opinion on this topic?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please reply,
I invite everyone to the discussion,
Thank you very much,
The above text is fully my original work written by me on the basis of my research. In writing this text, I did not use any other sources or automatic text generation systems, such as ChatGPT. Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19
During the Covid-19 pandemic, governments around the world implemented a wide range of anti-crisis measures and state economic interventionist policies to mitigate the impact of the crisis on their economies. These measures varied in scope and magnitude, depending on the specific needs and circumstances of each country. Here are some of the common measures that were employed: -
1) Fiscal Stimulus Packages: Governments rolled out significant fiscal stimulus packages to provide economic relief. These packages included measures such as direct cash transfers to individuals and households, extended unemployment benefits, grants and loans to businesses, and support for key sectors severely affected by the pandemic, such as tourism and hospitality.
2) Wage Subsidies: Many countries introduced wage subsidy programs to help businesses retain their employees during the economic downturn. These programs aimed to prevent mass layoffs and provide income support to workers. Governments often covered a portion of employee wages for a specified period.
3) Loan Guarantees and Credit Facilities: Governments provided loan guarantees and credit facilities to support businesses facing financial difficulties. These measures aimed to ensure that businesses had access to capital and credit to continue their operations and meet their financial obligations.
4) Tax Relief and Deferrals: Governments offered tax relief measures, such as tax breaks, deferrals, and exemptions, to ease the financial burden on businesses and individuals. This included delayed tax payments, reduced tax rates, and extensions for filing tax returns.
5) Support for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs): Governments implemented specific measures to assist SMEs, which are often more vulnerable to economic shocks. These measures included grants, loans, and simplified administrative procedures to facilitate access to financial support.
6) Industry-specific Support: Certain sectors that were severely impacted, such as airlines, tourism, and hospitality, received targeted support. This assistance ranged from direct financial aid to sector-specific loan programs and regulatory relief.
7) Central Bank Interventions: Central banks implemented monetary policy measures to stabilize financial markets and ensure liquidity. These actions included lowering interest rates, quantitative easing (i.e., purchasing government bonds and other securities), and providing liquidity support to banks and financial institutions.
8) Job Retention Programs: Governments implemented programs to support employment, such as short-term work schemes or furlough programs. These initiatives aimed to provide temporary income support to workers whose hours were reduced or jobs were suspended due to the pandemic.
It's important to note that the specific measures varied across countries based on their economic structures, fiscal capacities, and policy priorities. The severity of the pandemic's impact on each country also influenced the extent of interventionist measures deployed.
@ Dariusz Prokopowicz
The anti-crisis measures of state economic interventionism used during the coronavirus pandemic were varied across different countries and regions. This was due to the differing economic and social factors affecting each country, as well as the specific needs and priorities of various governments.
Some common measures used by governments included:
1. Direct payments to individuals, such as stimulus checks and unemployment benefits, to help maintain consumer spending and prevent economic collapse.
2. Loans and grants to small businesses to keep them afloat during the pandemic and prevent mass closures.
3. Investment in healthcare systems and research to better understand and manage the pandemic.
4. Support for key industries, such as airlines and tourism, to prevent widespread bankruptcies and job losses.
5. Tax relief and other incentives to encourage investment and stimulate economic growth.
6. Increases in public spending and infrastructure investment to generate new jobs and boost the economy.
7. Policies aimed at protecting workers' rights and ensuring safe working conditions.
The specific measures used varied depending on factors such as the size and structure of the economy, the severity of the pandemic's impact, and the political and social priorities of different governments. Some countries, such as those with strong welfare systems, were able to implement more extensive economic support measures, while others had to prioritize quick and targeted interventions due to limited resources. Overall, the anti-crisis measures taken during the pandemic were widely varied and reflected the complex interplay of economic and social factors across the globe.
The anti-crisis measures of state economic interventionism used during the coronavirus pandemic were varied across different countries and regions. This was due to the differing economic and social factors affecting each country, as well as the specific needs and priorities of various governments. Some common measures used by governments included: providing financial support to businesses and individuals, increasing public spending on healthcare and other essential services, implementing tax cuts or deferrals, and providing loans or other forms of financial assistance to affected industries.
The anti-crisis measures of government economic intervention that were used during the corona virus pandemic differed in different countries and regions. This was due to different economic factors and financial ability of each country, as well as the specific needs and priorities of different governments. Countries that had economic problems due to sanctions showed less support, and businesses in these countries suffered more damage, or the support was not distributed fairly. Some of the common measures used by governments are: providing financial support to certain businesses and individuals, reducing or deferring taxes, and providing loans or other forms of financial assistance to affected industries. !!
- Badges
- Science topic