I usually write my articles for Defense Online carefully indicating all the sources to "support" them on solid and verifiable foundations. This time, I write quoting myself: we cannot accept the risk of new financial instruments whose sustainability we do not know; secondly, we will not be able to get out of it quickly, so the word "quickly" does not apply to this situation. Then there is the not negligible question that the payer decides and that therefore if the EU pays the bill directly, it would have the power to decide how to invest for the emergency and the "reconstruction"1.
To remedy the intolerable risk of relying on European credit in the form of Eurobonds or Coronabonds, I therefore suggested that our government could thus create massive issues of securities with a thirty-year maturity or even century bonds, with which to cover the cost of the "reconstruction".
Said issue of century bond, with fixed nominal value and actual value linked to a basket of European and international securities and indices, could also be open to everyone, in Italy and abroad, in the form of securities for an amount equal to two hundred euros each, repayable to the bearer in the The year 2120, traceable with modern electronic instruments by means of a chip and transferable between private individuals or between private individuals and the public administration in an unlimited way, apart from the anti-money laundering formalities of the tracking.
The operation could be compulsorily signed by all citizens with medium-high and high incomes, by means of a solidarity contribution proportional to the income aimed at the purchase of some century bond. Given that taxpayers with gross incomes above one hundred thousand euros despite being roughly 4% of the total pay a third of the income tax2, would allow to collect an important sum, even before entering the market or contacting the ECB for a highly desired quantitative easing in the primary market. Above all, this operation would have no deflationary or recessive effects, as the security would, as mentioned, be transferable, almost as liquid money. In theory, a courageous ruler could go as far as converting an amount of two hundred euros for every ten thousand euros deposited into a current account to a single security. Recall that the Italians have over 1.500 billion in current accounts.
In order to avoid the accusation of having issued a new currency, not compatible with the circulating euro, and to remedy the problem of paying taxes by means of state debt, the State could constitute a sovereign fund, not under Italian law, with the purpose management, and guaranteed with the right to manage a part of the state property, assets which, among other things, should take care of enhancing and making productive. In practice, the state would lose management but not the possession of unprofitable assets, granting them to an entity whose task is precisely to make them financially active assets.
The money collected should NOT be used directly to support the needy or the less capable, for the realization of non-repayable works or for, so to speak, political projects, for which the State has other instruments, including sovereign debt and tax levy, but to the development of industry, services and agriculture in our country, especially to favor medium and high added value SMEs. In short, no money for decoction caravans, for cathedrals in the desert or for small companies decocted but controlled by "friends", but for projects based on experience in management, innovation and economic and technological progress in the country. Thus, we would emerge from the crisis stronger than before.
Do I ask for the moon?
