But all of these considerations are political

Now that the "green shoots" of economic recovery seen this spring by many analysts seem to lose sight of the force, the question arises whether if the policy to restart the economy through a massive fiscal package ended in failure. The Keynesian economic theories have they proven to be false The problem is that the blow to the economy by the financial crisis was so severe that even a face huge recovery plan was not enough. There is another problem: in the United States, a quarter of the 800 billion of this plan will be spent this year. At the same time, Federal States were faced with a decline in their incomes exceeding $ 200 billion. Most are constitutionally obliged to balance their accounts, they now increase taxes or reduce their spending, offsetting at least in part the positive effects of the stimulus package.

Some are concerned about the increase in the debt of the United States. But the implementation of a new stimulus plan well thought out can in fact strengthen the fiscal position and future growth. A few rare people worry about the fact that this episode of public spending translate by inflation. But the most immediate problem is deflation, given the rate of unemployment and excess production capacity. If the economy resumes more vigorously that I expect, the spending can be cancelled. Better yet, if the greater part of the next budget package is dedicated to the automatic stabilizers - as compensation for the shortfall in federal States - and if economic growth is the appointment, expenditures will not take place. There is only little downside risk.

It is still that concerns exist about the fact that inflationary expectations can translate into an increase in long-term interest rates, setting aside the profits of the fiscal package. In this case, the monetary authorities must remain vigilant and continue their interventions out of standards - by controlling short-term and long-term interest rates.

Any political decision involves risk. Not now preparing a second recovery plan includes the risk of an even more weak economy and that that capital is not available at the time where they will be required. Stimulate an economy takes time, as demonstrated by the difficulties of the Obama administration to spend the allocated amounts. The full effect of the efforts undertaken could occur within six months or more.

A weaker economy means more bankruptcies, foreclosures of mortgaged housing and higher unemployment. Without even mentioning the human suffering involved in this situation, it has in turn new problems for the financial system. And as we have seen, a tottering financial system results in a slow economy, and therefore the possible need for injection of new funds urgently to prevent a new disaster. If we are trying to save money now, we risk having to expend much more in the future.

The Obama administration did wrong in asking too modest tax package, particularly after the political compromise that made it less efficient that it could have been. It has committed another error by setting up a rescue of the banks who gave too much money with too favourable conditions and too few restrictions, to those who were responsible for the disaster in the first place - a policy that has seriously cut appetite of new spending taxpayers.

But all of these considerations are political. The economic line is clear: the world needs all industrialized countries undertake to adopt a new series of stimulus. This point should be at the centre of the discussions of the next meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh.