(by John Blackeye) I had never heard of universal income. In this period of world pandemic in which the virulence of contagion could really make us think of a sort of universal judgment, I would never have thought that someone could have proposed a universal income, that is, an income for everyone, regardless.
The details of the initiative or proposal have not been better specified. For heaven's sake, everyone is free to make proclamations and to sponsor more or less striking solutions. I am reminded of that of the Albanian actor in one of his "cult" films in which he promised in an unlikely electoral competition: "Chiu ... for everyone". But I had never heard of an income for everyone.
Freedom of opinion in Italy is guaranteed by the constitutional charter but if these proposals are put forward by a founding leader of a political movement in the government, then things change.
Certainly the pandemic has highlighted the need to find economic resources to allow those who have lost their jobs in this state of emergency. And it seems that in recent days the State is trying to look at them to prevent "hunger" from leading to unrest.
Anyone who has passed a history exam, in any university course, has learned from the past that revolutions are made when you have an empty stomach. And if in Italy the population has always remained good and condescending it may be due to the fact that in addition to the Sunday football game he never missed a plate of pasta and ten euros to put gasoline in the car for the picnic out of town.
But proposing an income for all is a proposal that to me, who am neither an economist nor a politician, sounds to me as much as a stage "boutade".
Without having a great experience of financial mechanisms and not even knowledge of the articulated organizational structures of the world of work, it seems clear to me that in a modern society, based precisely on work, it is necessary to set in motion a gear in which starting from the base of the company, everyone is able to produce and earn. If you make money without producing, I think the system can't handle it.
I wonder how the economy can turn if the money flow reaches the recipients without creating jobs. There would be a flattening of society but at this point, the basic question, the first one, to ask the person who proposed this solution is the following: "But the money, the state, from where it would get them out to keep millions millions of big babies? From the taxes that the money given, because it is a gift, would it generate because it was placed on the real market? Boh?
The proposal was certainly very rough as the analysis proposed by myself was just as rough, but one wonders if the old proverb "To each his own" is not more attached in this situation than in many others.
If someone, in fact, is born with a talent for doing a certain job, perhaps entertaining millions of people in front of a television, making them have fun as others would not know how to do, it is not that one can then become a leader of political movements that claim to take over of a state with sixty million inhabitants. It seems that the recipes, to revive the country, are known only when the stars move.
Financial analyzes, economic impacts and solutions to crises like this, let's leave them in the hands of experts. Improvising, especially in times of crisis, or generating false expectations, can only create confusion and system imbalances that are then difficult to bring back on the line.
It is clear that the next electoral round will redesign the national political scenario by asphalting and canceling, if not entirely, the current parliamentary representative framework, relegating political phenomena to the pages of history that will be studied by posterity.
But in the meantime, that is, from here to the next elections, let's avoid doing further damage.