I gladly continue the dialogue with Massimo Mucchetti, especially on the broader issues he addressed in his April 9 letter to FIRSTonline. On the specific issue of the way out for the CCBs, within a few days we will find out whether the 20% tax will actually be prohibitive and therefore the rule ineffective. In this case, someone would have miscalculated. It happens. Amen. Much ado about nothing.
The real theme of Mucchetti's article emerges when he writes: "I would have expected a word from a liberal economist like Galli on the decision of 'Unità' not to publish my open letter to Undersecretary Lotti….” Letter which for this reason ended up in the Fatto Quotidiano and from which this debate originated.
I won't go into the merits of the decisions of the Unit's management, the reasons for which I don't know. As a simple reader, I don't think anyone doubts Mucchetti's goodness as a journalist, but this is not enough. Even Travaglio and Sallusti - to name a few - are undoubtedly capable journalists, but if I find them writing in the "Unità", or even in the "Corriere della Sera", I would wonder if it is still worth comparing these papers.
Obviously Mucchetti is not Travaglio or Sallusti. But for some time now, and to my great surprise, he has been writing things that, albeit in more urban and sophisticated tones, bring these gentlemen to mind. The problem is not in agreeing or less with certain provisions of the government, even if Mucchetti is spoken of only when he does not agree.
The problem is that, with a certain frequency, he supports, moreover with great skill, substantially arguments populists about "the government of lobbies" and conflicts of interest. This literary genre has undoubted success in Italy and in its media and judicial circus, but it seems to me that it takes you down a wrong and dangerous path, because it tends to block any chance of economic progress, as well as being fertile ground for populist movements.
Mucchetti knows the industry, its culture, its rigorous logic. But in the big article on Fatto there is, in a nutshell, both the grammar of the anti-industrial language of the M5S and the fan of the mud machine on which very little logical or rigorous populists leverage. According to this grammar, the merit of a measure becomes secondary: in this case, it matters little that the government has taken another incredibly courageous and long-awaited measure on banking and that this is an important step in strengthening our economy. What matters, surprisingly, is who met whom. Specifically, here we read that an undersecretary would have contacts with a specific bank. The reader is not given the opportunity to think that perhaps the undersecretary was concerned (absit iniuria!) about the general interest, nor is it said that the measure was approved only after a serious discussion in the Finance Committee in the Chamber, where employ people of great balance and competence. You even get to hiss: "Dear Lotti... I don't want to verify now whether, based on the yardstick used for Federica Guidi, your conflicts of interest exist or not...". And further on: "...the presidency of the Bcc di Cambiano will inform the shareholders that, in the event of a crisis..., the bank which has become a joint-stock company would be subject to compulsory administrative procedure...". There is also a warning: "When it is, the Vigilance will have its say".
The step is really short between what Mucchetti says and the populist argument that this government (but – the doubt arises – any government!) would have oil on its hands and would be generous with gifts to the bankers. In this climate, we have reached the absurdity whereby a parliamentarian who meets an entrepreneur, a banker or a lobbyist becomes corrupt.
Dear Mucchetti, without prejudice to the respect for the judiciary when, unlike in this case, there are hypotheses of a crime, this drift must be firmly opposed, not supported. It must be clearly said that the task of the parliamentarian or of those in government is not to expel i lobbyists from the temple, as the M5S would like. His task is to listen to their arguments, which are often those of the territories in which the parliamentarian was elected, and then exercise independence of judgement. Making decisions in an ivory tower is wrong, illusory and very dangerous.
Finally, I cannot ignore the fact that in the opinion on the credit decree issued by the Senate Industry Commission, of which Mucchetti is President, it is requested to eliminate a key point of the Boccadutri amendment regarding anatocism. Basically, it calls for a return to banning the compound rate, even for periods longer than one year, which would make current account overdrafts, a vital form for small businesses, practically impracticable. How is it possible? What is happening to the best and most educated part of this country?
