There's a lot of noise going around end of austerity: Europe took us off the bad list and therefore now everyone, starting with the politicians, thinks that the state can go back to the good old days when all levels of public administration were ready to satisfy the most varied requests of citizens- voters. Mind you, nobody likes austerity. Ever since it was preached with a moralistic attitude from Berlinguer many years ago, we argued that making sacrifices could be a way to overcome a moment of difficulty, but certainly not a philosophy of life or a political goal. However, it would be good if the many critics of the austerity that Europe is accused of with laziness tell us what recipes are suitable for us to resume a decent path of development. Are we going back to public spending made up of so many gifts left and right and little investment? Or should we take a path of reforms such as those suggested by Brussels (and which we should do even without external suggestions)? But is the country really controllable with these rules or do we have to change them?
Today the Governor of the Bank of Italy Ignazio Visco will not have an easy task. As always the assembly of the Bank of Italy it offers the country a moment of reflection and stimuli for government action consistent with the objective of a lasting recovery in growth, unfortunately almost always unheeded. But this year the cultural and political confusion as well as the growing impatience of people who cannot see clearly into their future, require the Governor to add clarity and courage. Clarity in refuting the many wrong recipes that are put forward in politics on the relaunch of domestic demand through public spending, on the possibility of bringing back credit with coercive measures on the banks, on the possibility of avoiding those changes to our political and administrative system which, without charges for public finances, they would greatly facilitate our competitiveness, such as those of Justice, which instead are postponed from year to year. But it also takes courage to indicate those recipes that could attack the two main obstacles that have nailed Italy for over 15 years to low growth and now to a particularly harsh and prolonged recession: low productivity and high public debt .
These are certainly the two crucial aspects of the Italian crisis and it is certainly not reassuring that Prime Minister Letta has carefully avoided insisting on these two aspects, preferring to speak generically of putting work back at the center of political action, as if the reabsorption of the unemployed could come from who knows what miracle. It would be good to explain where the low productivity of the Italian system derives from and that it lurks above all in the public sector where the "arch-brothers of power" operate who seize abundant resources for private or, at best, unproductive ends.
It would not hurt to say a few words on the need to cut expenses (saying where and how) in order to be able to reduce taxes starting with those on work and businesses and not those on real estate which exist throughout the world and the lack of which has caused in Italy an excess concentration of savings on real estate.
Maximum clarity is then necessary on the situation of the banks beyond the usual reassurances on their solidity. If it is true that credit cannot restart because our banking companies have little capital and what is more eroded by the massive losses deriving from company bankruptcies, how can we speed up the times for their recovery? Among the various proposals, the one that now seems to prevail is that of asking for a recapitalization of the European State-saving fund as done by Spain. This would involve the signing of a memorandum of intent on the reforms to be implemented within certain times, which are still the same ones that have been talked about for years and which concern the labor market, justice, increased competition, tax reform, the banking system and the control of public spending. It's hard to think that Italians would be unhappy if we finally made these reforms on the impetus of Brussels instead of on the independent initiative of our Parliament.
Regarding the public debt, it would not be bad if the Governor spent a few words on the possibility of lowering it with some extraordinary initiative for the sale of public assets to not only real estate but also corporate investors, including too many companies owned by local authorities that operate outside the competition and often in an inefficient manner.
Finally Europe. Having said that we must refuse the excuse of attributing all our troubles to Brussels or Mrs Merkel, we must also clarify that many things are not right in this Europe. Banking unification is proceeding too slowly, investment support is too modest, the services market is not being unified. Above all, it is necessary to clearly tell the Germans that it is not possible to maintain forever an economy model based only on exports and therefore on the accumulation of large surpluses in the trade balance. They are right when they say that the recovery of industry has come about thanks to the sacrifices made to a certain extent by all citizens and when they say that other countries too must follow this path, but they are wrong to continue with austerity in their budget and on wage increases when they could more courageously relaunch domestic demand.
In short, a great effort is needed on Visco's part to demonstrate that the easy shortcuts invoked by a large part of public opinion would actually be counterproductive and would nullify the sacrifices made in the past two years, but above all to indicate a possible way out capable of bringing to satisfactory results for the whole country and above all for the many young people anxious about their future.
