[ad_1]
At the end of any mathematical operation, and therefore also economic, one must always summarize. Without results, in fact, the meaning of these operations and economic choices would lose all meaning: in this case the results are bad, as reported by economist Valerio Malvezzi.
We are talking about the euro-liberal couple, who in the Covid era see the negative effects of an economy that makes hell in a circle that has no end worsen: austerity, cuts in public spending, bad results.
A circular operation, which allows everything except the circulation of money for companies, small companies, private workers. In short, the result is the following: companies closed, taxes that skyrocket, social benefits for those who would need a job. So why don’t we change course?
Hear what economist Valerio Malvezzi told us in ‘A special day’.
“The real problem is political: if I show you the number of those who work in Italy, you will discover that it is a minority. If you look at the numbers of those who work in the private sector, you will see that it is a distinct minority.
Put yourself in the shoes of a politician: what does a politician want to do? It is worth keeping your butt in an armchair as long as possible. It is the only objective it has, everything else is urban legend.
Once, 40-50 years ago, to govern the country you had to turn to companies, which were the majority.
Forty years of neoliberal madness have led entrepreneurs and freelancers to be a clear minority. Among other things, this minority is being exploited more and more, for example, now new Inps levies are being introduced to the self-employed to create a kind of subsidy.
I make an economic reasoning and say: is it possible that the people who are slaughtered from the economic point of view – and they are the minority – and the majority live on the income that these slaves of the system produce?
Do you know why it doesn’t come out? Let me give you an applied example of the Overton window: suppose I tell you that there are fires in any Italian wooded area. As a technician I say that you have to take Canadair and go over the fires with a little gasoline, so then you come back to see me and tell me that the fires have increased.
I answer you: of course, you should have put more gasoline than airplanes! You go away and keep adding more gas, then you come back and say the fires keep increasing. I answer: of course, because you are an idiot! You have not put enough gas.
In economics, this example translates as follows: public spending must be cut.
At some point we go back and say that the debt-to-GDP ratio is getting worse instead of better.
They say to you: “Of course you haven’t cut public spending enough!”
Let’s go back and say that the debt / GDP ratio continues to deteriorate: “Of course you have not cut public spending enough yet!” They respond.
But do you understand that they make you pass some nonsensical things as sensible and accept it on the same principle as throwing gasoline on the fire?“
