•
Rating: Today, I bring to the attention of the courteous readers of Debaser—whom I greet again with the warmest regards—a book that was underrated at the time of its release, but which, in my modest opinion, is very useful for understanding some of the fundamental dynamics of our time, as well as the ideological basis of regulatory interventions that, over the last few years, have somehow impacted everyone's life and the relationship between the economy and society in contemporary Italy.
It is a book that, like any work on the subject, tells us about what happened in the past to make us reflect on what is happening today and what will happen in the future.
In our case, what happened in the past are the government experiments conducted in the United States and England in the early 1980s, carried out by two political leaders who would not have entirely displeased Plutarch of "Parallel Lives": I am referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, here captured in their lively voices and in a collection of public speeches of rare fascination and effectiveness, with a nice preface by Romano Prodi.
To the young users of the site, who are usually not accustomed to historical study and reflection, these two names might mean little or nothing, or at most be entries to look up on Wikipedia or another search engine of such nature.
Conversely, these are two great innovators who, with different tones, knew how to re-envision the management of public affairs in their respective countries, starting from the observation—which was not at all obvious in those years—that economic growth implied, in order: 1) reduction of government apparatuses, in favor of the free unfolding of economic forces, to the point that, according to a very famous phrase by Reagan, the State was not the "solution" but the "problem"; 2) reduction of the bargaining power of unions against the entrepreneurial classes, considering that the elephantine union apparatuses were seen as obstacles to the development and growth of the workforce, underestimating the fact that the protection of social rights can only be reasonably discussed when tax revenues allow it, that is, when there are sufficient resources to meet the demands of citizens; 3) economic liberalization through the promotion of competitive markets in every sector of strategic importance, eliminating, where possible, public intervention in the economy, i.e., subsidies, support for businesses, regulations aimed at protecting markets.
These are, of course, three closely intertwined aspects, given that the happy synthesis "less State, more market" implies nothing more than the elimination of public apparatuses as centers of mere power management, of self-referential representation of interests, often of public and private corruption, and not least of useless expenditure, to the detriment of those taxpayers who—instead of seeing money poorly invested by the State due to tax revenues—would be fully capable of taking care of themselves by directly investing their savings in forms of private welfare (pension funds, insurance, and the like).
In the past, I confess that I played a bit with my courteous and less intelligent readers by hiding the true meaning of my thoughts in my essays, finding more entertaining the misleading interpretations, sometimes comical, of the average user, who focused more on my finger than the moon that I patiently and tenaciously pointed out on these otherwise beautiful pages.
In the late 2014 Debaser, it might no longer be time for provocation, but it is time to genuinely reflect and explicitly on the meaning of the books I highlight: in this essay, it is clear that we speak of Reagan and Thatcher to allude to the public policies of today, particularly those of the Monti, Letta, and last but not least, Renzi governments, which revisit the Reagan-Thatcher ideology in a more overt and conscious manner than occurred during the Berlusconi governments, whose noted anomalies prevented the Cavaliere from conscientiously carrying out reform plans desired by some and opposed by most.
What strikes me the most, as a citizen even before a writer, is how in Berlusconi's Italy the names of Reagan and Thatcher were almost seen as scarecrows by a left that reconnected—if not to worn and defeated second or third-world ideologies—to the diluted wine of Blair's Big Society, while in today's Italy the same recipes, revised and adjusted with careful linguistic cosmetic interventions (Job's Act, Salva Italia, Sblocca Italia), are accepted by most with resignation.
Those who contest, on the other hand—and I mainly refer to the unions, as well as the third-world left convinced that the aromas of sandalwood and ethnic necklaces sold at various festivals open the mind to a new way of seeing things—are increasingly reminiscent of those Japanese soldiers who believed they were still fighting World War II, when it had ended decades ago, with the dropping of a real atomic bomb (for the unions, it is, metaphorically, the end of the post-Fordist economy, with the associated advent of globalization).
Today, dissenters should rather ask themselves: Can I still afford public welfare, making it opportunistically weigh on my children or grandchildren? Can I delude myself that public welfare works in a state and society, like Italy, where the behavior of free riders (or Portuguese, i.e., tax evaders) already causes enormous inequalities between those who contribute to expenses and those who benefit from them? Can I afford to demand a certain level of labor protection if, a few hundred kilometers from home, there are other workers—other hungry people—performing the same activity at a tenth of my labor cost? Can I support the functioning of the state without considering the competitiveness of its enterprises in the global context?
It is clear that these are neither simple nor easy answers, just as the story narrated—and restored—in this book helps illuminate our perspectives: Reagan and Thatcher managed to grow their countries at the cost of greater social inequality, in the wake of a certain economic Darwinism that not only rewards the strongest but under certain conditions favors the financial economy over the real one, advanced tertiary (financial services) over primary and secondary sectors.
Of course, we all know where those policies have led.
But we also know where a century of communism in Eastern Europe has concretely led, as well as being aware of the impracticality of anarchic utopias.
Loading comments slowly
