Una pacata risposta

Who is Thomas Fazi?

I had a look at his Twitter profile. There is a link pointing to this page. Thomas Fazi is "an activist and filmmaker". Sounds like an interesting job. A little search on Internet showed me that Thomas is the son of Elido, an Italian publisher that for unknown reasons is fighting a personal battle against my scientific work and my activity on the media, mostly based on vacuous and libellous arguments (a sample here, another one here, where the most cogent argument is that I teach in Pescara, not in Harvard, which is something I can very well live with, considering that seafood is definitely better in Pescara, and that people teaching in Harvard have written bullshit like that; by the way, the Department of Economics in Pescara ranks in the top quartile in the IDEAS ranking of Italian institutions). For your records, Elido's noble effort intensified in April 2013, after I refused to take part in a debate organized by the Fazi family. The person who got in touch with me introduced Fazi as "editore, scrittore ed economista" (a publisher, a writer, an economist). I had a quick glance at Ideas, and the keywords "Elido Fazi" gave me this result. I decided that it was to little for Mr. Elido to define himself "an economist" and declined. The libellous activity started, but I had more interesting things to do than lending my attention to it: publishing on top journals, writing bestellers (this is the ranking of my last book ten days after it appeared):

intervening in the debate, fighting my battle for the dissemination of top research on the issues of the Eurozone, organizing international conferences, and so on.

Business as usual for a professional economist, nothing particular. After all, I am only in the world top 9%!

It is worth noting a detail. Elido (the father) had at least once in his life knowledge of the work of Nicholas Kaldor. For the layman, it is useful to know that Nicholas Kaldor was among the first professional economists to foresee quite exactly the failure of the European monetary integration project. I would be surprised if Elido (the father) did not take notice of this non negligible contribution by Kaldor to the scientific literature. As we all know, the economic science is not so rich in correct forecasts! It is more likely that Elido (the father) belongs to that huge host of Italian intellectuals (whatever it means) that were perfectly aware of the risks of the monetary union (and probably were also against it), but that over time, for unknown reasons, changed their minds. The most representative member of this panel, as I explained in my book Il tramonto dell'euro, following a suggestion by Vladimiro Giacchè (precisely the one who explained us what game is playing Germany with Europe), is Giorgio Napolitano, the current President of the Italian Republic. Napolitano's speech against Italy's entry into the EMS is a marvellous piece, perfectly sensible on both political and economic grounds. It was as timely in 1978 as it would be in 2014. Truth uses to be relatively stable...

Be it as it may, Napolitano is defending now, when it is failing, the project he had fought before, when he had correctly forecast its failure. I have no evidence of Elido fighting the euro before its failure, but I would not be surprised: we have a lot of examples of Italian "left-wing" intellectuals changing their minds and doing whatever is possible in order  to suffocate an open and democratic debate on Europe (and to cancel any trace of their previous positions in the debate, which in Napolitano's case is a bit difficult, because it was recorded in the Chamber minutes...).

The literature on political science teaches us that it is completely pointless to sing Elido's (and Thomas') favorite song: "we want an Europe with the euro but without the elites". The reason is that the euro is precisely the instrument the elite used to reach the power. This is not an opinion: this is a result of scientific analyses, reported in scientific papers like the one of Kevin Featherstone, that I quote extensively in my last book. The euro is the apex of the vincolo esterno  ideology, an antidemocratic, fascist, ideology, based on the assumption that technocrats must rule in place of elected politicians, because the latter are by definition "corrupt" and "partisan". This argument is faulty for evident reasons, and for less evident ones. A less evident reason is that there is nothing like a "neutral" economic optimum that can possibly be managed in a "technical" way, Every decision about economics is political, and every mean to subtract it to the democratic control is fascism. Many Keynesian economists agree on that point.

The euro, therefore, is fascism. No more, no less. I use to call it "eurism". The third, and over time most destructive, ideology we inherited from XX century.

Like every regime, the "eurism" has its propaganda media, which for obvious reasons are mostly "left-wing": wolf in sheep's clothing, the oldest spin technique! The Manifesto/Sbilanciamoci group belongs to the propaganda media. Unfortunately, they were so naive as to declare it. In November 2011, when she resigned, the director, Norma Rangeri, claimed that she had coordinated a debate to "avert the folly of the adoption of national currencies". No problem, or... Well: the debate had been announced as an open one, but many people complained that their papers (criticizing the euro) had been censored. Now: if you are a "left-wing", "open-minded" intellectual, you are supposed to be open to any opinion, arent'you? So what's the point in censoring papers? And what's the point in declaring openly (but afterwards) that the debate was anything but open-minded?

I was really ashamed (for them).

I registered the fact that I had taken part in a propaganda (better saying: spin) operation, I denounced it in my blog, and I completely interrupted my relations with those "intellectuals", that meanwhile faded away...

Some days ago I received an unwanted spam email from them, and I replicated in my blog, asking them to possibly cancel me from their lists, and to stop giving biased information.

At my huge surprise I now learn that I had threatened of death Thomas (the son):

Wow! I did not know to be so dangerous, but fortunately I live in a State were the rule of law is more or less enforced. If I really threatened this guy (I checked myself the paper I wrote, and I find nothing but a very vehement invitation to the Sbilanciamoci editor to change the editorial line of his website, because people are fed up with biased propaganda, especially if it comes from media that are supposed to fight against the elites), I suppose I will be sued for criminal offence (it would be one, actually), and someone will judge, and possibly fine me. I do not mention this guy, I just say that people nowadays cannot say anymore that they did not know that the euro was a mistake (everybody recognises it now, I had started some 17 years ago, following the best part of my profession), I recall the fact that "I did not know" has historically proven a very weak argument. That's all. Sure, the euro is a regime, and people who serve it are the proof of the banality of euro. But each and every piece of my research and of my activity in the debate proves that I intervened precisely in order to avert the massive explosion of violence that the dull supporters of the euro are preparing for all of us (well: the dull and the clever supporters of the euro).

The strange reaction of this "filmmaker" promoted my interest. I had a look at some of his initiatives, like this one:

Wow! (again) Looks like an interesting and expensive initiative! And in fact, as you can see, it is intertwined with a network of media intiatives more or less coordinated, sponsored, and possibly funded, by the EC.

You know, I am an economist. My first curiosity was: who pays for such a nice conference? I asked Thomas, but I did not receive any answer yet. No problem, I am not so interested in this matter. Have a look at the delegates: Daniel Gros! Do you remeber him? He was the one who took part in the One market one money study, the study financed by the European Commission to demonstrate us that:

Well, now we know that things went quite the opposite, and even the Ecb agrees (with some delay) with our view. But there is nothing strange with a guy who wrote a research paper being in an (undeclared) conflict of interest taking part in a conference organised by other guys who possibly are in a very similar conflict of interest.

I would never expect someone who receives funding, or support, from the EC, to give a frank advice on the EC.

So, what are my conclusions? My conclusions are that the inexistent "death threats" received by Thomas are a nice spin operation (possibly - who knows? - funded by the EC), or at least a mean to attract some traffic on their website, that has a fifth of the page views of mine. You know, when things get tough, truth becomes a highly demanded good. And people who lie, dreaming of dystopian "United Staes of Europe", are inevitably driven out of the market. Do not be afraid: they will survive thanks to public funding!

I conclude this brief analysis with an advice to my colleagues. As citizens you can obviously be of whatever opinion you wants. As scientists it becomes much more difficult to support the euro. But, please, in your interest: do not support EC funded spin operations. In the long run this would destroy your credibility, and that of the economic profession as well. When the euro will fall, Europe will need credible economists, in order to help politicians to restore social justice as soon as possible. The downside risk is a comeback of the worst nationalism. Do not take this responsibility on you by supporting libellous tweets, as Varoufakis did. Please, show some respect for the suffering of so many people and for what the most influential members of our profession had told us. It will really be difficult in ten years to write a ridiculous paper like the "unknown unknowns" masterpiece! Kaldor's paper above demonstrates that everything was known, and well known, well before! There were no "unknown unknowns", everything went as expected. Since thirty years people paid by the EC, or at least supported by it, or connected to it, are spending our money to convince us that a huge economic, political and social intentional failure is the right path for all of us.

Are you really sure that you feel like taking part in this propaganda? How is it possible that you do not have any doubt about the quality of this project? I do not want to be disrespectful, but you must recognize that over time this becomes a highly suspect attitude. Another euro is not possible, and euro will destroy Europe. Many pieces of scientific research have demostrated it over the last decades. We see it happening now. No doubt? Sure? United States of Europe? And why? To fight nationalism? As if the Usa was free of nationalism! Have a look at that, you dreamers: this is the nationalism-free country you have in mind! This is the project you are supporting.

Am I allowed to disagree with it?

Thank you.

And now go on with your libellous rants, but do it within reason. It is a kind and thoughtful advice, of course, not a threat. Better safe than sorry...















Ricevo sbalordito dallo Sbilifesto questa lettera:

Newsletter n.382 - 23 dicembre 2014

"La ripresa greca? Un'invenzione"

“La crescita greca è un’invenzione, il paese è in piena Grande Depressione, e tutto questo perché si è scelto di salvare le banche a spese dei cittadini. Ma ora, con Tsipras, il paese è pronto a cambiare rotta. E a far cambiare rotta all’Europa”. Intervista a Yanis Varoufakis, economista molto vicino a Syriza di Thomas Fazi

alla quale pacatamente replico:

La domanda è una sola: ma come cazzo vi viene in mente di scrivermi? Volete un'altra mano di asfalto? Anche lo spot a quel traditore di Tsipras? Ma quanto volete cadere in basso?
Sentite, facciamo così: voi toglietemi dalla lista, e io vi lascio perdere.
Su unsubscribe cliccateci voi, che vi conviene.


L'ho detto su Twitter, e lo ripeto qui. Non sperate nel pas d'ennemis à gauche. Ho scritto due libri per dimostrare ai lavoratori italiani che il loro principale nemico è stata la sinistra degli inutili intelligenti (definizione di Massimo Rocca).

Quando tutto questo sarà finito, qualcuno chiederà il conto.

Se oggi il mio libro viene recensito (onestamente) da lavoce.info e non dallo sbilifesto non è perché io sia bocconiano, ma perché lo sbilifesto è fascista. Sì, fascista: ho scritto due libri per dimostrare che l'ideologia dell'euro è il nuovo fascismo, non starò certo qui a tornare su tutto il ragionamento. Del resto, pensare che Tsipras voglia far cambiare verso (anzi: rotta, ma il concetto, come vedete, è il medesimo) all'Europa significa essere qualcosa di più che ottusamente ideologici, che patologicamente ciechi.

Significa difendere un regime fascista.

Servono altre prove?

Allora, cari "compagni", voi avete perso il treno, e come tutti quelli che lo hanno perso, da Tigellone alla Fraiola, state lì a ragliare le vostre abominevoli menzogne. Però io ve lo dico da non violento, da persona che ha sacrificato salute e carriera per scongiurare l'inaudita esplosione di violenza che minaccia tutti: sarebbe il caso che chiedeste scusa per aver soffocato il dibattito, e che il verso (o la rotta) la cambiaste voi.

Chi continua a mischiare le carte in tavola, come voi state facendo, è semplicemente nemico aperto e dichiarato della democrazia. Come andranno a finire le cose non lo sa nessuno, ma c'è una probabilità non nulla che finiscano in un modo in cui chi è stato nemico della democrazia sia costretto a giustificarsi.

Dire "io non sapevo" non basterà, non farà molta impressione, e chi ci ha provato sapete come è finito. Non vi auguro di finire come lui, ma vi auguro di finirla.




(la stessa cosa auguro alla Fraiola, poverella, che in preda alla sindrome dell'amante tradita continua a delirare nel suo blogghetto che nessuno legge. Bucce d'uomini che passano la vita a lurkarmi, dopo essere state cortesemente messe alla porta per manifesta inadeguatezza, e alle quali non sfugge nulla di quello che dico, tranne alcuni dettagli, tipo questo o questo! Capite chi sono i nemici della democrazia in questo momento? Quelli che, come lo sbilifesto, si son fatti un vanto di soffocare il dibattito, e quelli che, come la Fraiola, si sono rifiutati di aiutare l'unico progetto serio, credibile e riuscito di divulgazione, in nome di loro paturnie politiche (alle quali una vita di fallimenti politici e non solo li avrebbe dovuti consigliare di rinunciare), e ora, una volta tolti di mezzo, lavorano h24 per gettare discredito su chi ha portato il dibattito all'attenzione dei grandi media ed è riuscito a imporre la propria voce come credibile perfino sull'organo della Bocconi. C'è più apertura di spirito a via Sarfatti che nella redazione dello Sbilifesto, e questo lo si sapeva. Quello che sfugge è che io potrei anche, com'è ovvio, trascurare e dimenticare i ragli dei tanti asini che sono stati distanziati dal destriero, e probabilmente lo farò.

Probabilmente.

Ora investigheremo la risk aversion dei somari. Alcuni ne sono pericolosamente sprovvisti.

Capite perché insito e sempre insisterò su questo concetto: "uniti si vince" è una scemenza!? 

Io mi sarei dovuto unire a persone della pochezza umana che vi ho appena documentato? A voi sembra che raccattarsi tutta la melma ortottersovranistmemmettarauritiana sarebbe stato un progetto lungimirante? Avrebbe portato prima il tema dell'euro in televisione, sui giornali, sulle riviste scientifiche? Avrebbe reso più difficile il lavoro degli spin doctor da quattro soldi come Barbera?

Sicuri sicuri?

Io invece penso esattamente il contrario.

Chi siano certe persone lo si vede da distanza e sulla distanza. Dopo averli allontanati e aver fatto passare un po' di tempo si può capire chi fossero. Tigellone e la Fraiola volevano qualcosa, è evidente. Non potevano che perdere contro uno che non vuole niente. Ma non avevano lo spessore per capirlo. Quello intellettuale ed etico, che su quello fisico, almeno in un caso, dubbi non ce ne sono...)


(sed de hoc satis, ma vedete come sono generoso con gli amici? Gli regalo qualche click, del quale hanno tanto bisogno. D'altra parte è anche importante che capiate cos'è la mia vita, da quali e quante persone vengo tradito e attaccato e per quali motivi. Sì, una mosca può essere più fastidiosa ed è certamente più offensiva, ma vedete, non importa se sia un grammo o un quintale: chiunque, inquinando il dibattito, tolga democrazia a questo paese, che già ne ha così poca si macchia di una colpa che sarà difficile sanare in nome del "volemose bbene", del "ma eravamo tutti dalla stessa parte". Dalla stessa parte de che!? Per quanto ne so io, dalla mia parte siamo in due: io e Vladimiro. Se mi son dimenticato qualcuno, scrivetelo qua sotto che gli chiedo scusa. Gli altri sono folclore se va bene e fetecchie se va male. Come vi ho dimostrato, ci sono anche le combinazioni convesse: le fetecchie folcloristiche...)

(...sarebbe bastato così poco a capire chi andava aiutato...)