“The economic forces that support the PD do not want unemployment to fall, because what lowers wages increases rents. The PD is the party of income. Including the underemployed and discouraged, Italy is at the top of the unemployment ranking”

Of Marco Dozio
Professor Alberto Bagnai, professor of economic policy, spearhead of economists opposed to the single currency, candidate for the Political League, Renzi said that you are a dangerous extremist who wants to destroy everything.

My candidacy was commented by political opponents as a demonstration of the League's dangerous extremism. In particular because according to my political opponents I would be someone who wants to destroy Europe. It's funny to note that immediately after, Toni Negri, perhaps slightly more extremist than myself, gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which he hoped that Brussels would take the reins of the Italian government. It is the demonstration that there is proven extremism among supporters of the European project. Project that authoritative scholars such as Vladimiro Giacchè, Luciano Barra Caracciolo and Giuseppe Guarino have demonstrated how it is incompatible with our Constitution. It is no coincidence that the opponents who call me an extremist are those who tried to change the Constitution. From this point of view the numbers add up. As for extremism: no one wants war and no one wants to destroy anything. Studies such as that of the International Monetary Fund demonstrate that since we have been in the eurozone there has been an ongoing disintegration of the economic structures of countries. In the sense that the euro benefits strong countries and disadvantages weak ones. Salvini's position is absolutely moderate and prudent, as he poses the problem of what to do if a scenario of disintegration of the eurozone is never stopped. The one who can arrest him, come dice Stiglitz, it would be the political will of the countries of central Europe to cooperate with the periphery of Europe. But we see more every day that this will is not there. And indeed we see that Brussels is preparing for a further crackdown on the banking system which risks bringing us definitively to our knees, something of which our current government seems to be unaware. This is not being moderate and prudent, is to be an extremist: market extremism, the extremism of thinking that if we rely totally on the financial markets they will know what to do with us. And in fact they know it: pork meat.
Renzi and the PD government carry out this type of plan by bending to the diktats of Brussels?
It is an objective data that I analyzed on my blog in a post entitled Renxit (left by Renzi): PD-led governments or technical governments supported by the PD have continued the program contained in the letter from the European Central Bank of August 2011. Everything the ECB asked for, point by point, it was done. Except to amend the constitution, they didn't get there for the December vote 2016. They made the reform that makes budget rules more stringent, introducing the balanced budget into the Constitution. They abolished intermediate administrative layers such as provinces, even if in a messy way, creating confusion. They intervened further on the pension system, with the Fornero reform. They have revised the rules governing the hiring and firing of employees, col Jobs Act. These measures were requested by Europe 7 years ago and after 7 years let's see what they have produced: a disaster, a desert in the Italian economy. This agenda was wrong, because it prevents the State from having those shock absorbers that allow it to intervene when there is a need to support the economy in the event of a crisis.
Speaking of economic desert, PD and various ministers claim great results on the economic front, they rejoice over the current unemployment rate, they give merit to the Jobs Act.
The government claims to have achieved great results and it is normal for it to do so, we are in the election campaign, every voter is able to weigh these statements. We need to understand to what extent the recovery that is taking place in the Italian economy is due to government action or not due to the driving force of other economies, which are all doing better than the Italian economy, and we are not told this.
In his blog he wrote that the real unemployment figures are much higher: adding unemployed, discouraged and underemployed you come close to the 40%, we would be in a worse situation than Greece and Spain. But on television they tell us that unemployment is decreasing and that there is a recovery, what voters should think?

Salvini says that he would like a normal country. My definition of a normal country: one in which only those who earn enough to support themselves and their family are considered employed. I was born in a normal country: at that time only my father worked, then my mother, when we grew up, wanted to dedicate herself to a job, but he did it by choice, not because forced by hunger. Now if you don't have at least two jobs you can't support a family, and sometimes they are not even enough to support a child. The statistics are not rigged, these are statistical criteria shared at European level, but as I demonstrated in post of August, Eurostat took a different decision than what happens in the United States, dove il Bureau of labour statistics (labor statistics office) contains six definitions of the unemployment rate. The broader one also considers workers who have an involuntary part-time job to be unemployed, that is, those who would like to work full time but are not allowed to, and also discouraged workers, those who are not unemployed because they are not looking for a job having given up looking for one. If this criterion is adopted, Italy is at the top of the unemployment ranking. Official estimates of unemployment, provided by the government to reassure us, they greatly underestimate the phenomenon: the real unemployed, those who do not support a family with their work, they are about triple what we are told. And they are as a result of a series of reforms that have made the labor market more precarious. If you are in a system in which macroeconomic adjustment must occur by lowering wages, because the value of the currency compared to your trading partners is 1 a 1, there being a monetary union, you have to resign yourself to having more unemployed people. The PD is the party that generates unemployed, the party of unemployment.
Unemployed or underemployed but with the government's one-off bonus…
The 80 euro, or the income I call “something” (citizenship, dignity etc.) they are obviously palliative measures, because they don't solve the problem of planning for the future. These are measures that everyone perceives as insufficient and do not put enough liquidity into circulation in the economy. The path is that of public investments which should however be financed with money so as not to create further debt. There would be no contraindication, except that of increasing inflation, but that's what everyone wants, without being able to obtain it. Make an investment policy for the redevelopment of the territory, for the stabilization of precarious workers, so as not to remove nurses and doctors from hospitals, activates a growth path that makes the debt fully sustainable. The truth is that the economic forces that support the PD do not want unemployment to fall, because what lowers wages increases financial returns. The PD is also the party of income. It is not the party of a healthy and productive economy, but that of big finance. The economic structure says this: a party that defends large financial income. And this is a criticism that is also made by the left.
Indiscriminate immigration, as well as social alarm, causes distortions from an economic point of view?
An important Keynesian economist like Skidelsky has authoritatively supported this: insert people into a context in which worker protections have been lowered, with measures such as the Jobs Act, amplifies the negative effects. The economy is a system of communicating vessels: if there are people willing to work for a short time, wages will tend to fall. There is also the problem of social alarm. Welcoming refugees is a duty, but the percentage of these compared to the total arrivals is minimal. We are witnessing the failure of integration policies, not only in Italy: failure also comes from the rejection of a shared set of values. Integrating means assimilating values, but if the values ​​aren't there you can't assimilate anything, so we are all disintegrated, we natives and those who arrive. We know that i governments previous to Gentiloni had committed to absorbing immigration in exchange for budgetary flexibility from the EU, on the basis of the hypothesis that the arrivals were a cyclical and not structural fact. This welcoming policy attracted a huge number of people, some of whom died in dramatic circumstances. In this the EU has had a Pilatesque attitude. In Austria the gendarmerie was deployed, in Ventimiglia they closed the borders: our European partners say they can accept refugees, but not the so-called economic migrants. Because Italy should accept the latter? This is not the way to solve the problem. So much so that the same people who urged us on the path of hospitality, with very personal topics, very demagogic, now they say that indiscriminate reception is negative, position that many have read as a real about-face.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: http://www.ilpopulista.it/news/7-Febbraio-2018/23157/alberto-bagnai-il-pd-ha-distrutto-l-economia-i-disoccupati-sono-almeno-il-triplo.html