I do not want it long, so I say now that the "crisis" for those who presents it in such dramatic terms, is that people should be dismissed because "the market" does not offer work. Stating that there is no work, is not the same as saying that there is no work to do. Wherever you look around you realize how much work should be done, many think that it would be obvious, that we are few to do all that is needed.
Moreover, when you talk about resolving the crisis add that this solution will not bring the people at work, at least the first year. Also if, meanwhile, does not break out (?) another crisis. In short, the crisis for all means unemployment, lack of jobs for young people, for all life-sustaining, it is clear that for them means something else.
In fact, among the things they say is that this crisis resolved, can not be solved directly or indirectly, the endless problems of humanity.
Then, OK, the crisis is financial!
All together, who?
But that means that the crisis is financial? At the risk of being accused of being far too simplistic, to say that the crisis is financial is rather simplistic simply that those who financed, that have lent money to the states, the states are concerned that borrowers want to feel normal, with the inability to pay. (Not being able to pay is a very normal situation in a normal free market economy,).
Let me be clear: no one who is sane can believe that the current public debt because of the amount achieved in different countries, may eventually be repaid. But this, obviously, is not an issue for those who funded and has received funding, their problem is that the debt remains debt and the debt remains due. If you declare that you can not pay the claim may no longer be entered on the assets the budgets of the creditors and the interest you receive from the profits. If the debt is credit to these interests we will agree to the various pseudo deadlines.
Someone raises the question of who these creditors to whom we owe all this money? In Italy, for example, they are quick to tell us that we each have € 30,000 of debt, but no one tells us who we owe. What, weeping, we are told, when someone proposes to tax capital gains, is that you can not do that because of poor pensioners who round their poor pension with the yields of government bonds. But since only less than a fifth of Italians are retired, I want to say that every pensioner has €150,000 of securities in its portfolio?
Who are the real creditors?
But if it was, being himself, his wife, his two unemployed sons and his two grandchildren, equally liable, he must finish that is the poor pensioner himself, with his pension, which pays to his beloved family and himself. (Less fees that go to the bank and 12% that goes to the state).
In Italy, if by chance, we noticed that the lion's share, if not all, of the debt is in the headquarters of banks and companies in the North, perhaps the idea is not farfetched that the debt should not be divided into part equally among all citizens. If the claim is in the North, and North collects almost all of the interest, maybe it's the North that it should load. Especially if one considers how, through bank mergers and so on. titles are now in the headquarters of the North, regardless of whether they were before the Banco di Napoli, Banco di Sicilia, Banca di Roma and the numerous regional and savings banks.
anno
40 n. 356
Angelo Tirrito