Replies to This Discussion

BAIA TeamPermalink Reply by Franco Folini on December 4, 2011 at 6:45pm

Mi auguro che questo sia il primo passo. Poi, speriamo, ne verranno altri.

Se l'azione del governo si limitasse alla manovra senza affrontare i problemi strutturali allora non avrebbe nessun senso.

Diamo a Monti un po' di tempo.

• ▶ Reply

BAIA TeamPermalink Reply by Giorgio Ghersi on December 5, 2011 at 4:17pm

...granted that a somber (at times tearful!) attitude towards the current political/financial situation in Italy, is more appropriate than the childish (often teenagerish?) behavior that we have seen in the past years, foreign and Italian commentators seem to agree that Mario Monti's austerity measures lack the innovation Italy needs (follow the link for TheGuardian article, and "tears from a Minister").

For English-speaking-only readers: the linked article echoes the one posted by Grazia from il Corriere della Sera.

• ▶ Reply

BAIA TeamPermalink Reply by Matteo Fabiano on December 6, 2011 at 3:40pm

The approach is truly one of a doctor/surgeon's intervention... Fix the patient! Fitness, prevention, working out, diet are not in the cards right now, evidently.  

Note: It is absolutely hipocritical of those who have done nothing for decades to give Italy a coherent industrial policy and growth plan to now criticize the very actions that their inaction has made all but unavoidable.  

• ▶ Reply

BAIA TeamPermalink Reply by Matteo Fabiano on December 6, 2011 at 3:43pm

BTW, do not underestimate Monti's political savvy. He is doing what he needs to do to get his way. 

• ▶ Reply

BAIA TeamPermalink Reply by Veronica Rosso on December 12, 2011 at 10:26pm

Sullo stesso tema, un altro articolo interessante sul conflitto di interessi e la (non) privatizzazione. Sinceramente si fa fatica a capire se il commentatore e' malizioso o se invece la vede lunga...

http://www.linkiesta.it/da-alitalia-alle-frequenze-tv-il-conflitto-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert DeFazio on December 18, 2011 at 12:12pm

The premise of this article is that the president should reduce spending, increase growth, and shrink government. These are the solutions that many believe must be implemented, but they are superficial, short term solutions to what is a more endemic problem based on an attitude of entitlement. This attitude is shared by government, business, and individuals not only in Italy but throughout Europe and the rest of the world. This sense of entitlement comes as the logical consequence of the repeated choices made for socialist governments by the electorate. When people are asked to forfeit much of their income to a government that promises a guaranteed retirement, generous health benefits, and subsidies of one kind or another, the expectation is created that the government is fully responsible for most of what goes wrong in life. This is further exacerbated when a parliamentary form of government, which closes off certain critical decisions from its constituencies, prevails. A good example is Greece. When it was announced that the decision to move forward with the Eurozone would be put to a popular vote, the very notion of it was met with a public gasp that could be heard all across Europe's capitals. How dare those Greeks think that something that would affect their daily lives should be decided in a democratic fashion in the birthplace of global democracy!

Europe has an unique character among the regions of the world. It, more than any other area of the globe has exhibited an unusual demand for unanimity with respect to policies, opinions, and behavior. When dissention occurs, it is often not very civil, and the response to it is often equally forceful. Recently, France outlawed any public disagreement, under threat of imprisonment, with their official position regarding the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide. While this level of intolerance of public dissent is not erupting all over Europe, the silent acceptance of it across most of Europe shows that use of compulsory measures to ensure apparent harmony does not rise to the level of being completely egregious.

People will not gladly accept less from government and take upon themselves more of the burdens of life unless the fundamental notion of individual accountability takes root in a significant way. Government can assist that process by directing funds to entrepreneurs instead of to large companies since it is entrepreneurs who take risks and who create jobs. It can make clear to the next generation of Italians that the comfort of their retirements will be increasingly the result of their own economic planning and not necessarily the largesse of the government. It can reduce its own size and make it clear to the populace that being elected or appointed to a public office is not the same thing as a coronation. Just as companies have customers, so public employees have customers, too. They are the citizens who walk in the door to request a document or some form of assistance in resolving a problem. That's their job. Performing that job should not entitle them to extraordinary benefits enjoyed by no one else in the country.

Italy stands on the brink of self-destruction. Decades of accumulation of debt, trivialization of its workforce, and the lack of support for its business sector in overcoming obstacles to sell what it makes to the rest of the world have wreaked havoc on the nation's economy and its citizens. Government has to accept that it does not need to be big to be effective, but citizens have to step up to the bar and to do their part, too. This may not seem to be at all appetizing to anyone, but it is essential that it be done.

In 1961, when the United States found itself in a position of lagging behind the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, President John Kennedy said this famous line in his inaugural speech: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I can remember hearing those words being spoken for the first time, and I distinctly recall that the applause he received was polite and cold. Self-sacrifice was not something that Americans accepted well then, and today even more so, our own inclination to impose austerity on our own households has been further diminished. We have become addicted to iPods, iPhones, computers, cars that we have to lease because we can no longer afford to buy what we desire, home ownership even when it consumes 60% or more of our gross incomes, Starbuck's coffee that costs five times as much as making it at home, and a host of other sybaritic indulgences. What is required is to live with less and to be happy doing so. Only then will the demand for more government services shrink, allowing government itself to shrink and taxes to decline.

I don’t envy Europe’s leaders. They believed that if they armed themselves with good will and orchestrated decisions among themselves carefully, they could rise above their historical proclivities toward aggression to solve their problems. They thought that by creating a universal currency they could make going one’s own way more uncomfortable that joining the EZ club and accepting compromises. Now, they are discovering that they have not been very successful in bringing along their citizens in this process of ceding more and more national autonomy to a pan-European authority. They are discovering that the divisions of geography, language, customs, traditions, and attitudes are not to be taken lightly. The question is whether they have come to this awareness in time to dodge another large and deep recession or whether they are presiding over the end of a grand experiment in European economics and government.

 

 

• ▶ Reply