During the last four years that the international economy has been in turmoil, we have not been short of proposals of how to resolve the crisis as it has continued to evolve.

We need to remind ourselves that in early 2008 there was already the fear of a global economic slowdown as a result of the significant increases in the prices of fuel and other commodities.

That was soon forgotten as the crisis evolved into a meltdown of the international financial markets, which produced a credit crunch that brought several leading economies to their knees, apart from a number of banks having to be bailed out.

As we started to emerge from the recession in 2010, even then there were doubts as to what sort of economic recovery it would eventually turn out to be.

We did not have much time to think about that aspect as the crisis mutated itself into a sovereign debt for a number of countries in the Eurozone and outside it, threatening the European single currency.

As these countries sought to implement austere fiscal policies to regain the credibility of the financial markets, which they themselves had saved through heavy public-sector borrowing, they plunged back into recession.

And this is where we are today.

Today we have a situation where some countries want to attach more importance to economic growth than to the need to balance public-sector budgets, while other countries led by Germany are seeking to do the opposite.

The United States, which also has a high fiscal deficit, is seeking to spend its way to full economic recovery, while taking some tough decisions on spending cuts.

The United Kingdom is seeking to follow suit, probably with less success. It is difficult to state now who is right and who is wrong. Only time will tell us that. However, it may be safe to say that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The United States suffered greatly as a result of the Great Depression in the early 1930s and so are understandably endemically afraid of a deflationary spiral.

Germany suffered greatly as a result of hyperinflation during the 1920s that eventually led to the Nazi dictatorship, and now they are themselves endemically afraid of an inflationary spiral.

Therefore the two strongest economies have different backgrounds and are bound to hold a different view of the world and how to resolve the economic crisis.

An article in the business section of the UK Sunday Times of a month ago projected this apparent conflict in economic policies as a cultural issue.

The writer claimed that America’s policymakers think that their European counterparts are mad to believe that fiscal austerity will restore economic growth, while a few European politicians believe that no country has ever become prosperous by printing money, borrowing and spending and depreciating its currency.

However it does go deeper than this, which explains why it may be a cultural issue after all.

The European Central Bank has one mandate – that of maintaining price stability.

The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has a dual mandate – maintaining price stability and achieving full employment.

This expanded mandate makes sure that monetary policy is also used to promote economic growth, apart from controlling inflation.

Another distinction between the United States and the European Union is the semantics.

The word united in the United States does not have the same meaning as the word union in the European Union.

There is far greater diversity between Northern European states and Southern European states than there is between states in northern USA and states in southern USA.

One can also refer to the fact that the social welfare net in most of the European Union is much stronger than the social welfare net in the United States.

Europeans would claim that the US system is far less caring, while Americans would claim that the European system is too generous and does not serve as an encouragement for people to seek employment.

The German policy of fiscal austerity is now seeming to appear as uncaring as the US policy, with Italy, France and Spain all seeking to impress on Chancellor Merkel that more financial resources are needed for investments to combat rising unemployment.

Therefore we now have three main lines of thinking.

The US line is that one needs to spend one’s way out of the recession while maintaining great flexibility in the labour markets and not strengthen the social security net too much.

The German line is that one needs to maintain low inflation, maintain a strong social security net and balance the fiscal budget, even if that in itself means higher levels of unemployment.

The Italian, French and Spanish line is that public expenditure is to be curtailed, while allowing for more public-sector investment to stimulate the economy and thereby introducing more flexibility in the labour market.

Each of the three formulas has its own costs to bear and benefits to reap. Malta too has to implement its own formula. And this is one of the sad experiences for our country of this difficult situation in the inter-national economy.

All too often we have waited for the government to provide the formula that works (and it generally has), with too many people sitting on the fence wondering which way to go.