IGNORANCE IN ECONOMIC TERMINOLOGY CAN LEAD TO TOTALITARY ACTS

These days, as we are not for the following, the lack of judgment and experience in economic matters of many politicians means that their speeches can help to develop totalitarian policies within the same European democracies.

It is not new for many that ultra-left parties, formerly called communists, can suggest the nationalization of companies and any kind of financial or economic entity, now and always. The strange thing in all this discourse is that politicians of social democracy of the likes of former ministers like Borrell, may fall into this kind of confusión.

Initially we should start by talking about one of the elements that is being talked about these days: this is a war. If we take the definition of war from a political and legal point of view, it is the state that can declare such a situation, and therefore define against who establishes it, and this cannot be a bichito without legality or jurisprudence, it has to be another sovereign state, so either war is declared to China or politically not a state of war.

Another situation is an economic war, which, although not defined, is assuming powers of control that would give us to think that there is an undeclared economic war against an undeclared but clearly defined enemy, China. While this declaration of economic warfare has not been formulated, governments, except the United States, are trying by all means to calm the waters, without further legal action being brought for more than a misunderstanding. It is curious to see how all governments try to take china’s blame on the spread of the pandemic and turn it into a fact of nature, when China itself blamed the United States, not even 15 days ago that the coronavirus was synthetic and had been propagated by its arch-enemy in response to cross-accusations by both countries. The only two countries that have investigated in this field are the two that are clear about their synthetic origin, the rest are looking to avoid denouncing anyone, but this would be another topic of another article.

Continuing the crisis situation and its unlucky communiqués, it should be remembered that the crisis of 2008 led to the INTERVENTION, not the NATIONALIZATION, of banks that were made available to other entities for regulation. Governments only committed to the acquisition of the most economically “insane” products and created the “malus bank”, but in no way were nationalizations of any kind, and the intervention was made on agencies where the state was already auditory because Savings Banks were not private banks and had representation of the government in their Administration boards, before the crisis , that means, the State was responsible for the crisis generated, at least by default.

This element is key to understanding that the current economy may be very limited and in need of government aid, but that they in no way involve a return to the nationalization of such enterprises. Should these nationalizations be carried out we would have to re-consider what has been the prominence of governments in the business crisis, and the answer is 100%, so we would be transforming the future of the free market into a whim of Venezuela-style demo-totalitarian governments, as it is democratic choice , even if its operation is totalitarian, and whenever it was to nationalize industry, with a simple mandate like the current one they could cause industries to pass into the hands of the rulers of that time.

In no way does the aid that private companies receive or need to receive for the recovery of their properly functioning situation has to go through the EXPROPRIATION of them or the intervention of the State in their Administration Boards. Moreover, the responsibility of states, their negligence, lack of preparedness and inability to manage this kind of crisis, for which they are solely responsible, should be assessed, and both, companies and citizens, who vote for their governors should transfer the cost that has brought to all this real chaos. Chaos that could have been provisioned.

If the responsibility is not for anyone outside the country, it is the government who has to pay the bill, and interestingly, the EU is not responsible for avoiding entering into the provisions of the whole group to leave them in the hands of each country. In other words, it is the government of the countries who have to pay the bill for this incompetence.

If, by the contrary, it is defined that this is motivated by war, governments should define the the enemy, in that case, and trnsfer the bill to it and then compensate the citizens and businesses concerned.

But here is not worth the demagoguery of indefinition: it is a war, but it is not; it’s mismanagement but it’s not; I make the decisions but I take no responsibility for them; I say something, but it was a lapse of precipitation. Incompetent governments exist all over the planet, but countries’ laws are to judge both their government and the inconveniences and pecuniary repercussions of their actions. As in a flood, the government pays for not having provisioned the situation, in this case the government must pay WITHOUT NATIONALIZE for not having been up to the circumstances or not daring to pass the bill to the person responsible for it.

If the problem was that we did not have health equipment in stock to deal with something of this kind, let us not be incompetent and start buying the material from the generators of the crisis, we believe our industry, maybe that it does have to be from the state in case it doesn’t really exist in the country, but that we are able to face in the future situations of this kind. It is in these kinds of decisions that citizens can value the real capabilities and competences of their governors.