Mes, but what are the banks hiding?

If the controversy about the MES is not just a screen to make people forget that the government is throwing another 400 million on Alitalia, the real problem becomes understanding what is hidden. Also because abroad "we are doing caciara to hide Alitalia waste" is not understood much, so you have to be careful what you say.

So: Alitalia was the favorite parking place for lovers, relatives and various registered members of the League card. So if Salvini's cabin is closed, it has a grain, and a strong one, inside the party. Having said that Salvini had to have a weapon of blackmail on the government, or something that would allow him to cover, with the caciara, that other money is thrown into Alitalia. And he chose the Mes.

Moreover, there are also other parties that have used Alitalia as a parking for registered travelers, so there is nothing strange if the other parties play side by side: Salvini raises the dust, and while there is talk of Mes, puf: 400 million of euros to Alitalia. For nostalgic sovereigns, 800 billion lire.

And the story of the bridging loan "while Alitalia is lightening to make it attractive" does not hold: if it was intended to make it attractive, it could be done during the last "bridge loan". But the foreigner does not understand this thing, except at the moment when Verstager will decide whether this line of bridging loans is legal or not.

So let's assume for a moment that the problem is the MES. Good.

So, the question that comes naturally is "what are they afraid of?"

Italy is contesting the rules that define the behavior of the ESM in the case of bank default, or in the case of default of public debt. The contested rules allow:

1. Risk assessment on public debt.
2. The "private participation" in the "haircut". An elegant way to say that if the Italian public debt is cut, the state or the tax payer does not lose it, but private individuals who have money in banks, including banks.

Now that the risk assessment on debt is disputed is a message that "it would be better not to give" to say the least. "It would be better not to give" I do not write because I think "to the markets", but because I will have to sit at the table and deal with other countries. That they would have good reasons for being afraid of the MES, but they don't give it to see. Because when you come to treat us, you are not afraid. If one shows oneself terrified by the idea that someone is going to poke their nose into accounts, one does not start from a strong position.

An account is to sit at a table saying "my accounts are perfect, me puppate in 3D". It is one thing to sit at the table showing a phobic terror that someone is looking at the accounts. If you do, you have already lost the negotiation, because every time the discussion becomes harsh all the other politicians answer you "well, let us see the accounts". And you back off.

In short, you are weak.

The second point is partially incomprehensible. What's the point of being afraid of a debt default when the spread is rather calm and the rating is not getting worse? Are there things the government doesn't say about banks? Are there hidden crises?

What is the Italian government hiding?

If we look at the facts, the Italian public debt is higher than it should, but so far the auctions work and the interest paid is relatively low, and this means that the debt is managed at least decently. So why all this hysteria about a norm that comes into operation in "Greek" situations?

It is said that "yes, but if the default of public debt comes, the citizens lose their savings". So, I want to be honest:

1. If the debt default comes, the last of your problems is your savings. Because we are talking about a situation where your old people do not take pensions and you have to feed them, where in the hospital you pay 100% of the price of medicines and treatments, your companies do not work because the banks are closed and they cannot do operations , and so on. Oh, of course: you gave us the money you invested. Interesting.
2. The vast majority of Italian wealth is concentrated in a few hands. Who screams at "they want to steal the savings of the Italians" lets believe that it is a habit of "Italian families" to save money, as if most Italian families had those 100,000 / 200,000 euros in the bank. In reality it is true that there are many savings in Italy, but if we put the numbers together we would find that they would lose about one family every 50 and only the richest. "The savings of the Italians" a shit: Italian wealth is in very few hands.

The problem is precisely this: to understand who the subjects who lose us are. Continuing to shout that we lose the savings "the Italians" is misleading and it is the false information that is passed: we would say that ALL Italians (or almost) lose "the savings", but in reality with the rules of the MES to lose would be very few rich people who now live on income. They are not "the savings of the Italians" but "the revenues of the rich".

Also because the alternative would be for us to lose the tax payer. But in that case the disaster would REALLY be spread on the savings of the Italians, AND OF EVERYONE. So the story that the savings of the Italians are taken with the MES is a double-layered lie: the alternative is that the tax payers do, that is, the Italians. ALL. With the rules of the MES they only pay the rich, which today in Italy are FEW.

What's happening is, in large part, that the rich have become hysterical at the idea that they could lose their money. The "savings of the Italians" have nothing to do with anything.

But the problem is not even this: that there are few rich people to lose money or they are poor people, the problem is "why does this thing terrify the Italian government so much?".

I repeat: apparently the spread is stable and the situation of Italian banks is fairly calm.

Why exactly is it so essential to remove from the agreement clauses that do not scare any other country in the EU?

I mean, if not even the Berlin government, with Deutsche Bank collapsing, is worried about this clause (and indeed has proposed it), why should Italy be terrified of it?

This kind of political debate, that is, risks asking everyone's mind a question: what exactly do they fear?

And it would be better to have an answer, because the hypotheses are more terrifying than the other:

• Some systemic banks in Italy are about to fail
• There is going to be some big solvency problem with the Italian government.

Of the two, either: they are either trying to cover up the money given to Alitalia, or they are really dying of fear for these two clauses. But if they show fear about these clauses, then not only will they be too weak to refuse to sign them (because if you are on the verge of a systemic crisis, you sign ALL) but there are VERY black clouds on the horizon.

Or they talk to give breath to the mouth, but then it would be better if they did it on less important matters.

links