Whenever an industrial disaster occurs, mainly due to a policy that hates and despises progress (and therefore industry), someone comes up saying that the state must step aside and let entrepreneurs do, which would be (according to "Liberal" on duty), something completely distinct from the state.
I refer to the throwing of stupid items like this:
The first thing I would like to point out is that there are exactly ZEROs of Italian entrepreneurs available to take ILVA or Alitalia.
And it is not a decision of the evil and socialist state. The problem is that with the cry of "Small and beautiful" entrepreneurs have become shopkeepers. Now, we can argue that all these shopkeepers have enriched the country, but in this way entrepreneurship produces a "small" bad luck: that when you have to do something BIG, there are no entrepreneurs who can handle it.
This applies to both ILVA and Alitalia. Of course, putting together fourteen or fifteen "big" FORSE Italian steel mills would be able to buy ILVAs, but I don't think they would pull out 4.2 billion of investments. But let's also admit that by putting together the first CINQUECENTO companies in the steel sector a compagion comes out (as compact as you can imagine from the number) capable of buying ILVA, all we would have obtained is a complete monopolist of Italian steel. It seems to me everything except "market", honestly.
But let's go to the second big mistake made: to hear what he writes, the problems of Alitalia and ILVA created the state. Obviously, since both ILVA and Alitalia created the state.
And it is true that the correspondent of ILVA and of Alitalia created by private individuals these problems has none: he has none because he DOES NOT EXIST.
Let me be clear, I have nothing against private individuals: I myself work for "rather large" multinationals. But the problem is that of these "very large" private individuals in Italy there is no trace.
If I look at the Italian stock exchange, in the first places of "private" I see few. I see state-owned companies, companies saved by the state, companies helped by the state. What the hell are we talking about "private"?
In Italy there are no private individuals capable of saving Alitalia and / or ILVA, because Italian entrepreneurs (who are then shopkeepers) DO NOT WANT to become large enough to do so. They spend their time chanting "small and beautiful".
It's time to start laughing in the face of these champions of Italian liberalism, simply by pointing out to them that when they talk about the "private" referring to great works, they are talking about an imaginary private life. A private individual, that is, that does not exist in Italy.
Of course, there have been large private individuals. I will mention the usual "Olivetti, et al". But in the end, they were wiped out. The last great Italian entrepreneur is called Silvio Berlusconi, and has only received spits from the "good salons of finance", which will also be "private", but I would not call them "entrepreneurs", let alone "industrial".
But I would like to return to the point: it is said that the state is the cause of the problems of ILVA and Alitalia, but it is silent that ILVA and Alitalia have CREATED them the state. Obviously, those who do things make mistakes, and cause problems.
Certainly those who DO NOT NOTHING never make mistakes, which is why Italian entrepreneurs seem infallible. They are never wrong because they do nothing.
Would you please show me Alitalia's private twin, which (I'm sure) will work great and be even bigger? An Italian, I mean. You show me another ILVA-sized but private steel mill, which is fine? You will fail: there are also steelworks that do quite well, but they are not the size of ILVA.
So I don't want to tell Mr Denicola "your girlfriend with a surname is Jpeg", but her fetishism for private individuals who don't exist to me knows a lot about an imaginary entrepreneur. Because if the state had not existed, Italy would have had no national airline and no steelworks in Taranto. It is useless to go around it: in Italy the State must intervene because Italian entrepreneurs ARE A CRAZY CAGATA.
You will surely find the state involved in ALL the industrial and infrastructural disasters that you see around, but it is not a case: it is because in the post-war period the state has had to do ALL the industries, or almost, and all the infrastructures.
Are we talking about collapsing bridges and unpaved highways? I do not ask you to show me the "private person who works" only out of respect for the victims of Genoa. Are we talking about private steel mills that are fine? Very well like Marcegaglia? Seriously?
And let's talk about Italian airlines, which surely the brave Italian entrepreneurs will have built, and will be bigger and will surely be better than Alitalia? Um.
This is the point. The problem is not to absolve or condemn the state. The problem is to understand that with these entrepreneurs / shopkeepers, there is no alternative to the state.
Of course, the Italian state is not perfect, it wastes money and everything. But when we talk about Italian entrepreneurs capable of doing works of the same economic and social scope, who are we talking about? The names?
The neoliberal article speaks of a mistake in the golden share of strategic companies. Interesting, but we also want to say that the "strategic" companies have been BUILT by the state, they are PROPERTY of the state, and therefore it is also sacrosanct that the state decides what to do?
Say it however you like, but in the case of Piaggio Aerospace it doesn't seem to me that the famous "private" have shone. Do you know what the truth is?
That the Italian newspapers are in the hands of the salons of finance. They are always ready to dedicate first pages to state errors, but they turn a blind eye to private problems.
We look at how much the "state errors" have if a public viaduct collapses, compared with the emphasis on carelessness, negligence, the sloppiness in which the Morandi bridge of Genoa was. Do you know what the difference is?
The difference is that if the negligence of the state causes a viaduct to collapse, the faults of the state are all discussed on the front page. If it is the negligence of a PRIVATE person, then the "private" newspapers are all guaranteed: we expect the power of attorney to be pronounced.
They are all investigative journalists against the state, they become leccaculos against private individuals. Because newspapers are published by private individuals, who will hardly process themselves.
Pages and pages of newspapers have been wasted on the ILVA crisis: when the industrial crisis of Marcegaglia occurred, only the news was seen in the newspapers.
On Alitalia rivers of ink are written, on the death of Piaggio Aerospace (which was a jewel), much less is written. The difference? The difference is that processing private individuals is not a job for private newspapers .
In Italy there is the paradoxical situation in which PRIVATE newspapers create the myth of PRIVATE entrepreneurs. This happens more or less all over the world, but reaches RIDICULOUS in a country where entrepreneurs are TOO SMALL to play the mythological role that newspapers assign them.
If we were in other countries, we could also decide that yes, the individuals who EXIST have the resources to do this and that. But in Italy, the result of this propaganda is ridiculous, because if I asked anyone who, among Italian private individuals, can throw 4.2 billion on the plate like Arcelor Mittal, the answer is that they are all too SMALL.
The myth needs a name, and you cannot build a DEI mythology (how you paint private) unless you have a name to give to these gods. Zeus was called Zeus, not "Anonymous Entity 'Sputafulmini, which is up to the government to find".
Ask yourself a reason: at this very moment, in Genoa, a STATE company is rebuilding a bridge that collapsed during the management of a PRIVATE. The call is missing once when PRIVATE people have really REMEDY to a damage done by the state.
And this should be enough to tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.