There seems to be a gap between the economic indicators that stir the hopes of the near end of the global crisis on one hand, and the effects of such crisis in the future on the other hand, when it comes to both direction and stability. This is because while the movement of capital markets - especially in emerging countries- shows a marked improvement that also extends to the indicators of global consumption, in addition to the indicators of economic confidence revealing a generalized optimism about the future, the warehouses of major companies are still full of stocks, while manufacturing and industrial indicators are bucking decline only to fall back towards average values. Furthermore, the Director General of Research and Studies in Natixis (a corporate and investment bank that also provides indices for stocks and securities) sees this improvement in the sheer size of investments in the stock markets in emerging countries, estimating it at three trillion dollars between August 2008 and April 2009, and then at 300 billion dollar monthly, which explains the fluctuations in companies' profits. He also mentioned how investors are returning to the markets of raw materials, and even gravitating towards purchasing poisonous stocks guaranteed by investment funds. This healthy leeway may not last for very long. In fact, this apparent recovery may rapidly vanish, and one must expect that the economy will not truly recover for at least another year, which still may not mean that the crisis will be over. As such, many governments have adopted economic recovery programs valued at trillions of dollars, all aimed at containing the spreading crisis and putting an end to economic collapse. In parallel, there were also plans adopted to bolster private spending, and that included tax deductions while boosting taxpayers' wages through waiving fees and income taxes. But these measures have inevitably led to the thinning of public funds, prompting governments to borrow more, and leading to larger government debts. For the first time since the Maastricht treaty in Europe, for example, we find governments in the European Union – especially inside the Euro Zone - compelled to exceed the 3 percent budget deficit allowed by the treaty. Similarly, China finds itself confronted with the dilemma of public debts for the first time ever, despite the cash surplus it possesses. Moreover, the public debt levels in the list of countries published by the World Bank for 2006 ranged from 4 percent of the GDP of the Sultanate of Oman to 190 percent of the GDP for Lebanon. This is while the public debt of the United States, Canada, France, Belgium had not exceeded 65 percent of their GDP in 2008. According to the International Monetary Fund, the first ten richest countries in the world are witnessing an increasingly augmented public debt, rising from about 78 percent in 2007 to 114 percent up to 2014, with every citizen having to bear about 50 thousand dollars in debt or economic burden until the mid-twenty first century, at the very least. Furthermore, despite the disagreement between the two schools concerning public debt - with the first perceiving it as beneficial and the second deeming it an economic disaster – ending the crisis can only take place through further public and private spending. With reduced revenues for the treasury, however, governments are forced to resort to borrowing, whether from international funds, creditors or by issuing treasury bonds. In China - where savings hit a record rate and where there are huge public funds - the rate of public debt has reached the equivalent of 35 percent of their gross domestic product, an exceptional rate probably associated with the 585 billion dollar economic stimulus plan. Only a quarter of this value is funded from tax money, compelling China to issue treasury bonds to cover the plan's costs, and pushing the Chinese People's Bank (a central bank) to start voicing its concern from the dangers of such expenditures. If China, whose economy did not yet contract as a result of the crisis, has already joined the club of indebted countries, then what about the United States, Canada and all European countries with no exceptions, as well as some Gulf countries and the countries of the Maghreb? Nevertheless, these debts are generally associated with global economic recovery plans, which were agreed upon at the G20 summit in April, and which the American President summarized by calling them “reform” plans. This reform would be focused on health-care and social welfare systems, particularly in terms of protecting pensioners and retirees. Meanwhile, The Economist believes that, in order to cut costs, certain reforms must be adopted that strengthen the institutional framework. The magazine also emphasizes the end-of-service terms, arguing that if the years of service are to be increased, some of the burdens of the crisis might be alleviated. Up to this moment, politicians have not succeeded in eradicating the burdens of senior citizens, which accumulate along with the burdens of a generation that is already at a 50 thousand dollar debt, and up to the middle of this century, those too will have had reached retirement age. Will the economic burdens of countries then remain exacerbated by their public debts in addition to the costs of providing social welfare and health care?
