The aesthetics of the conflict between liberals and statists wants statists to be predominantly workers, who hope to be maintained (through taxes) by the rich (ie by entrepreneurs), while entrepreneurs are the liberals who instead want the state not to let them hang on to their business, and those who do it by themselves do three.
The problem with this narrative is that it says exactly the opposite of reality. Because in reality those attached to the roof of the state are the entrepreneurs, and now the taxes are paid only by the employees.
Let's take a look at what happens when a moment of crisis comes. As soon as any index gets to score -0.0001%, the same uniform chorus always comes from the world of entrepreneurs:
- STATE must print more coin.
- THE STATE must increase public spending.
- STATE must increase investments.
- THE STATE must tax the rich, that is all the above must be paid by the poor.
Now, it is very difficult to consider this a "liberal song". To be honest, this sounds like a communist song. All these gentlemen "entrepreneurs" know how to do are to tap into the roof of the state (which they accuse the "communists" of wanting to do). But that's not all: all the measures that entrepreneurs ask THE STATE must be financed in some way, but since the entrepreneur asks for less taxes for the companies, this means that they must be financed by the workers.
In practice, that is, the modern entrepreneur seems to be a communist who intends to live with the money of the state (in the form of QE, public spending or public investment), and asks that others pay the tax bill.
It would be nice to see someone responding to entrepreneurs "dear entrepreneur, the state of the market doesn't give a damn and shouldn't give a damn, keeping the market strong is up to you and your shareholders".
And to those entrepreneurs who ask the state to spend, one might ask: but how much do your shareholders spend?
And this is another sore point: as soon as an index reaches -0.0001%, it happens that all the hysterical and cocainate bows of the bags become "risk allergic" and pull the oars in the boat, saying "the government must make more'". Now, the government is not born to take business risks: the business risk rests on the entrepreneur, always and everywhere.
This strange capitalism of impressionable mammolette, on the other hand, seems to operate in reverse: they sit at the table when central banks and governments put the meal on the table, but when they are asked to bring (at least for good education) a bottle of wine, they run away shouting that are they "allergic to risk": and if dinner fails?
To hear modern entrepreneurs, that is:
- All risks must be taken by the state.
- All investments must be taken by the state.
- Competitiveness must be guaranteed by the central bank, or the state.
- Credit must be facilitated by central banks, or by the state.
- The spending policy must come from the state.
And when the state, with its own money, manages to lift the economy from the crisis, do you know what these crafty screams will shout?
"Hands off MY job, and the fruit of MY investments."
The truth is that 75% of any modern company is the result of the sum of public spending, public investments, monetary policy and competitiveness guaranteed by the exchange rate. The state would have the right to be the majority shareholder of EVERY existing company, or almost.
This is fundamental because China is entering the world, where every company has the status as majority shareholder. Now, if you imagine going from the current situation to the Soviet situation, the jump would be too long, because in the Soviet economy all businesses belong always and only to the state. A system where the entrepreneur does not exist is not sustainable.
But if tomorrow any European state were to say: dear gentlemen, since in fact we keep you by dint of QE, Bailout and public spending, from tomorrow 66% of your companies are in the state, they would change very little. The system would be sustainable, for the simple reason that we would be formalizing something that is already real.
And that is why I refer to them by saying that they are communist entrepreneurs: their reasoning should be fine in China. In China, with the Chinese communist system, if companies go badly, the state acts as an orchestrator, facilitating a commercial strategy, increasing spending, and so on. Because it is a communist system where the state is 51% partner of each company.
The surprising thing is to see Western entrepreneurs, and especially European entrepreneurs, behaving like Chinese entrepreneurs: in every breeze, they ask the state to do something.
Paradoxically, those who instead demand a more open and competitive market are precisely the consumers, but if we go to see who they are, we find out that they are retail consumers, that is workers who spend.
So a paradox is realized in which the "working class" asks the government for reforms in a liberal and competitive sense (when we would expect the classic demands of the communists: more spending and more state), while the entrepreneurs, from whom we would expect liberal requests , they continually make requests typical of the communists: more spending, more state and printing money.
Political dialectics, being aesthetic, tells the opposite story. It's not good to talk about the dead, but when Marchionne said he joined FIAT and found everyone on vacation, it made me laugh. He had evidently entered BMW, where the workers are paid enough, bonuses of ~ € 9000 included, to leave on holiday. But with the FIAT metalworking contract, and the FIAT bonus (which does not exist), workers hardly go on vacation somewhere.
The time Marchionne joined FCA in Italy and found everyone was at sea, he had the wrong company and joined BMW. With today's economic treatment of his company, in fact, an Italian metalworker is unlikely to go to any maritime location.
And if you don't believe me, here is the link: https://www.contrattometalmeccanici.it/minimi-tabellari-livelli-retributivi-mensili
Ultimately, the modern entrepreneur's reference world is this:
- Competitiveness puts it in the state by devaluation.
- The state puts them through "industrial policy".
- The state supports the market through "expansive fiscal policy".
- The state sustains the risk by buying failed titles with QE.
- Taxpayers pay the tax bill, that is, the non-rich who pay taxes.
- Workers have starvation salaries.
What else is missing to describe a communist system? It seems to me that the description fits perfectly.
Ah, no, there is one thing that is not said: that in China, where all the things above are already true, entrepreneurs do as the party says, or are "re-educated".
Here, if I were in these entrepreneurs I would not marry so much with the story that the state "must do everything".
Because sooner or later, when it is said that "the state MUST do everything", someone comes up saying that then "the state CAN do everything".
Including kidnapping and torturing an entrepreneur.
If I were them, I would go back: as soon as some shrewd politician realizes that today's entrepreneurs DEPEND on the central bank and the state, they may have strange ideas in mind.