Author Archive

Many observers share the belief that very dangerous or, on the contrary, very positive, situations can be determined by minor accidents. For instance, that a war could finally follow a disruption of equilibriums between politicians and generals in Turkey. That in Italy severe strife, even the end of the Berlusconi era, might be the ultimate consequence of paradoxically light mishaps in the filing of candidacies to elected offices that are not important enough. That the emergence of a brilliant orator who makes capital of social discontent could torpedo the partitocratic regime the Allies installed 65 years ago (many surveys show that here derisory percentages approve the Italian institutions and their political ways).

The above fuses may or may not ignite large explosions. But, by a sort of counter-analogy it’s arguable that, if certain marginal or escapable events of the past had not occurred, the contemporary world would be incredibly different. Had the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III, assessed a diplomatic slight by chancellor Bismarck for what factually was a simple discourtesy rather than a threat to the vital interests of France, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 would not have followed (no serious conflict existed then between Paris and Berlin). Just two battles annihilated the French armies and their prestige. The Emperor was deposed, France was occupied, Alsace-Lorraine lost. Then, thousands died in the Paris Commune insurrection.

In the following 44 years France was dominated by ‘revanche’, the obsession of vengeance. So, had it not been for the foolish choice of 1870, possibly in 1914 French president Poincaré wouldn’t pressure St.Petersburg, and even London, to fight Austria-Hungary and the German Reich. Without the Tsarist defeat, it is not proven that a Bolshevik revolution would triumph in Russia. Had WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles not humiliated Germany, probably Hitler would not become the Fuehrer, Germany would not resort to WW2, and our history would be entirely different.

There’s more.

If Hitler had a quirk different from antisemitism, millions of Jews would not be killed. Not dissimilar could have been the consequences had the Jewish world community decided to buy Hitler with (a lot of) money or otherwise instantly confronted him. For many centuries, Jews easily bought Christian sovereigns’ tolerance, namely in Castile, France, and England.

Nobody of course can demonstrate the above successions as inevitable. But as nobody can prove the contrary, the assumption is legitimate that the XXI century world would be almost the opposite of what we have, if only Napoleon the Third with his courtiers, diplomats and marshals had been wiser.

Academic historians traditionally decry this way of thinking. But in no way can they prove the superiority of their approach. They idolize just what is archived and recorded. Which is at the same time scientifically correct and devoid of human lessons. Things that do not happen can be more fateful than actual events.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

Will the recession change us?

This was the question asked a few days ago by the Newsweek columnist, Julia Baird. The answer was implicit in the very title chosen by the editors for the article: ‘Seeking a moral compass.’

Now, where can we find a moral compass?

Ms. Baird indicated two deposits of truth, one credible, the other not at all. The former was the complex teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, especially those against the two social sins of wealth without work and commerce without morality. Clearly, nothing can be opposed to the Gandhi-derived indictment of aberrations like ‘debt-driven consumer spending’ and ‘channelling profits toward only those already on the top of the heap’. Who would lament that, according to Baird, ‘there is a hunger for change away from the empty and destructive maxims like ‘Greed is good’?

Instead, Ms. Baird’s hope that a moral compass can be found ‘in the inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt’ is utterly fallacious. We remember that FDR slammed the practices of unscrupulous money-changers, and promised that ‘we may now restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths.’ FDR was no money-changer (although he possessed much money as did his lieutenants, like Bernard Baruch, W. Averell Harriman, Edward Stettinius and other financiers), but he was certainly  unscrupulous. In common with all master politicians of the world he was so good at guile as to win his third term, in 1940, by assuring fathers and mothers of America that their sons would not be sent to fight foreign wars.

In forcing World War II on his reluctant country, he coldly condemned to die a few million human beings (mostly non-Americans), so that the plutocratic order of the world would be upheld against its challengers, however wrong the latter may have been. FDR certainly annihilated bloodthirsty Adolf Hitler, but saved from defeat and imposed to many nations the dictator Stalin, who was no better than the Fuehrer. One day after Roosevelt died, Harry Truman, his successor, turned upside down the philo-Soviet policy of the US and the Cold War began. The nation totally disavowed the Machiavellian Commander in Chief, who trusted the USSR as a champion of freedom. The lofty oaths of the Roosevelt inaugural address can be no source of hope.

Such source we must find in ourselves, in our own ability to go back to values that are better that a greed that is now overpowering. Earning lots of money is not paramount. Reverting to the simple life is. The $19 cell phone I bought a few days ago is as good to make and receive simple calls as a $900 one. The vast additional capability offered by the latter is superfluous in practice to most people. The same is true for large houses, expensive cars, costly clothes, fat incomes. The Great Recession is hard to some segments of our rich societies. But its by-product, a simpler life, will be godsend. Ms. Baird is right, despite being a believer in FDR.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

When a cancerous metastasis spreads too much, a person usually dies as no further surgery is possible. When metastases invade a nation, surgery is mandatory, as physical death doesn’t apply. Italy is presently the most metastasized among Western political societies, and her cancer is corruption in public affairs.

In past weeks the alarms have become deafening. Political scandals have multiplied -national figures being sent to jail, or indicted for crimes that deserve jail; respected institutions (like Protezione Civile, a powerful sub-ministry, headed by Mr. Guido Bertolaso, which deals with emergencies) disgraced; lastly, a two billion Euro tax fraud, the biggest one in a couple of centuries (56 arrests yet to be made). The prestigious Fiat-owned daily ‘La Stampa’ has summarized the state of affairs as “Repubblica dei Corrotti”, meaning a country governed by the corrupt. Warnings of danger are becoming desperate.

In the years before and after the Great War many countries of the world were shattered by revolutions and/or authoritarian  coups d’Etat, some of which paved the way to WW2. What can Italy do in order to escape disaster? The obvious answer is – changing her ways drastically and as soon as possible.

Change 1: The profession of the career politician must be dismantled in a succession of strokes, with a shift from parliamentary democracy to a selective (restricted) direct democracy. Corrupt politicians should be sent to labor camps.

Change 2: The whole body of government officials should be invested by an extraordinary assault. In the 1914-18 war the most extreme punishment on mutinous or coward combat units was decimation- selecting by lot and executing by firing squads every tenth man of companies, regiments, even brigades. Nothing less than bloodless decimations will crush corruption in the Italian bureaucracy. In the top echelons of civil service one officer in ten must be indicted and suspended. Until they prove their innocence they shall lose salaries, pensions, benefits. Their properties, including houses, cars, boats, etc., must be temporarily confiscated or seized, their office shall be given to substitutes (who will themselves be subjected to the next decimation). The loss of some experienced bureaucrats will not be painless, but the lucky ones will work harder and practice less corruption. Such harsh measures will  beneficially terrorize rank and file too.

Change 3: Those business people whose deals involve taxpayer’s money must be ‘decimated’ in ways that are appropriate to them, beginning with huge fines, confiscations, time in jail and will get refunds if proved innocent.

The sinister establishment  which runs, even owns, Italy will never do the above things, which of course will be said to infringe the noble Constitution, the law codes, civil and human rights, and so on and so forth. Therefore, the establishment must be pulled down through a temporary breach of legality and by an emergency leadership. Present laws protect thieves and scoundrels too much. If nothing is done, metastases will ‘kill’ more than decimations.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

Image via Wikipedia

Dark rumors have been circulating these past few weeks on possible power struggles in the high echelons of the Roman church. Rivalries are said to oppose two Vatican clans headed  by cardinals Bertone and Ruini. The former is the Secretary of State, almost a prime minister, of the Holy See. The latter chaired the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, the body that groups the Italian bishops.

However, the really serious ills of Catholicism, better of Christendom, go beyond the feuds in Rome on specific issues. They extend to what many believe is the slow agony of the religious sentiment in Western societies. The secularization of our values goes on since the year 1000 BC- the time when believers expected the end of history. Especially in the last half millennium the hold of religion on the Christian world has steadily weakened, contrary to some semblances.

For instance, scholars commonly believe that the overall history of Spain cannot be understood if the faith element is not seen as the central component of that civilization, even of the Spanish imperial conquests. Today, we have areas of said country where Catholic practice involves much less than 5% of the population. The process started there with the XVIII century Enlightment. True, the Islamic religion looks strong and spreading. But as soon as Islamites are drawn into the modern way of life, they accept the spirit of secularism.

Yet the great religions of the world are challenged today by a calling which is the exact opposite of the agony of faith. As the main ideologies of modernity (socialism, democratic capitalism) increasingly appear empty or ineffective, religions often emerge and recover relevance. This may be cogently true for Catholicism, which is organized around a strong center. Given new circumstances, the Pope might go back to being the supreme guide of the Christian peoples, as he was eight centuries ago.

For this to happen, the Roman Catholic Church will need a different kind of pastor. The Pope of the future should be a revolutionary. He should repudiate two millennia of continuity, move his seat from Rome, sell Vatican real estate and the richest archbishopric palaces, and renounce the official status of prelates. With deeds, giving practical help to the poor and searching for new ways of faith, he would prove the Church as a genuine source of truth. Possibly, not necessarily, such an innovating pontiff should be a very young, saintly monk -not a cardinal, particularly not a diplomat. Benign pope John XXIII was a diplomat for years, and that did not help. To reconstruct, a Pope for the future should demolish first. Continuity may one day kill the Church.

Massimo Calderazzi is Junior member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to whom many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

Teodor Obiang, president ‘vitalicio’ (for life) of Guinea Ecuatorial  (the official name is Spanish, as this tiny republic was a possession of Spain until some 42 years ago) has not been deposed, exiled or worse in the past few weeks. So, it is still relevant what El Mundo, the leading Madrid daily, and the The New York Times were writing recently about his son Teodorìn Obiang. The latter, in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture and Forests, introduced a new, ‘revolutionary’ tax on timber, a main resource of the country. As far as those forests are mined by foreign capitalists, the tax is totally legitimate. But the above reputed dailies affirmed that most of the Obiang wealth was acquired through corruption. The heading of the Madrid article was “EEUU prueba que Teodorìn Obiang roba a su paìs”- The United States proves that Teodorìn Obiang steals from his country.

The management of oil, discovered ten years ago, seems to have fattened the income of the presidential scion. This republic, with 400,000 barrels a day, is now third among the oil-producing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. A November 2007 report by the US Justice Department is includes extortion to the Obiang repertoire. According to said department, the young minister transferred some 78 million dollars to American accounts. This also explains how he paid 35 million dollars for an ocean-view mansion in Malibu, Cal. He flies there for vacations on his private jet.

A large part of the Equatorial Guinean population is poor. Before oil was discovered, the per capita income was around 250 dollars a year, and it’s unlikely that the oil wells enriched the villagers as well as the  country’s minister. Now, let us suppose that an entity of the industrial world decides to donate money that can improve the lot of Equatorial Guinea’s poor villagers. Might said entity entrust funds to the Obiang government, out of respect to its sovereignty? Of course not. How then can the donation reach the deserving poor? Sending Marines to conquer the country is out of question.

Instead the donor country may legitimately disregard the local authorities and dictate that, should they want to help poor people, an area of Equatorial Guinea must be handed over to a foreign armed contingent which will regulate and protect the charitable and/or productive activities to be run for the direct benefit of the population. This would mean paying no heed to the indignation of advocates of former colonies’ national pride.

Massimo Calderazzi is an author and journalist.

Image via Wikipedia

Many Britons, as well as many thoughtful people around the world, have indicted Tony Blair as a warmonger and a liar. They expect the Westminster special commission of inquiry to condemn, if only morally, the former star of Cool Britannia for wrongdoings in Iraq. The longing for justice of those who mourn the human beings killed in Tony’s and George’s ‘crusade’ deserves unbounded respect. However, if Blair is guilty, his crime is minimal in comparison with that of the most illustrious   among his predecessors at Downing Street.

The real villain of British warmongering in the 20th century is none other than Winston Churchill.

I am not at all trying to reopen the dispute on who were the worst culprits of the two World Wars. I am simply stressing that the most striking stamp of individuality in Churchill was his craving for armed conflict to attain his country’s ends.  Other statists (except for Adolf Hitler) did try to reach their goals with other means, usually short of conflict. But singleminded Churchill preferred conflict as, of course, he was skeptical of the realistic prospects of conciliation. At times he was right, but it’s a fact -he concentrated his vast intelligence and energy on the use of battleships and armor .

This son of a lord and of an American lady, also a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, the famed general, made his debut as a 21 year old warrior, fought with distinction in India, Sudan and the Boer War, was captured, escaped, and then became a war correspondent. When WW1 broke out, he was first lord of the Admiralty, later serving  as Minister of Munitions and Secretary of war. In his keen belligerence, Churchill succeeded in overcoming the objections of the naval chiefs and got his Gallipoli campaign (1915). It ended in such complete disaster that he had to resign… for a while. In the following years, in addition to striving for a strong intervention against Russia’s Soviets, Churchill adamantly opposed the international efforts to prevent WW2. In 1938, he left the government, which was ‘too conciliatory’ for him, but when the hostilities broke out he emerged as the top warlord of Britain: supreme chief of the Navy, then finally as the extremely powerful, prime minister.

Nobody ignores the glories of Churchill in the six years of WW2 (but, in Asia, Britain harvested defeats rather than successes; it was America that beat Japan). In 1945, at the moment of the final victory, Churchill lost power- the electors repudiated the fierce leader who pursued war for the sake of national greatness.

As many millions died in the tragedies of war, no comparison is possible between the burdens on Churchill’s conscience and the ones on Blair’s. In this sense, let’s allow the latter to enjoy the millions he is making since the day he abandoned Downing Street.

Massimo Calderazzi is an author and journalist.

As the leading member of the European Union, an outrage of the kind that recently occurred in a French factory a few weeks ago would have once been unthinkable.  Those Gallic workers announced (to the world, too): “In our plant we have buried explosive charges. We will detonate them if the management will go ahead with plans to destroy our jobs.” The question is: why we don’t hear about anything similar in the Bundesrepublik?

After all, Germany is one of the worst-hit industrial countries of the present recession. Her economy has contracted more than the American, British or French ones. But left-wing activists have scant success when they try to organize strikes and protests in Germany. In fact, today things are really different in comparison with the Weimar period, where hate dominated all. Back then, Walter Rathenau, the leading minister and the chief of the giant AEG, was killed  in 1922 by a handful of young men which included a distinguished writer, the Nazi Ernst von Salomon.

A logical explanation for Germany’s current tranquility is that the national Welfare State is so good that being fired is not as traumatic as elsewhere. In addition, Germans are confident that their productive apparatus is masterful enough as to rebound soon. The Ostpolitik consistently conducted by chancellors Brandt, Kohl, Schroeder and Merkel alone assures so much business with Russia (nuclear, railroad, gas programs) that today’s doldrums will not last long.

The German Welfare State is the longest standing one in the capitalist universe. Prince von Bismarck initiated it almost 150 years ago, and did so in cooperation with Ferdinand Lassalle, who personified the democratic alternative to Karl Marx (the latter much deplored that the brilliant young social reformer would work with the feudal and domineering Kanzler). Bismarck and Lassalle are said to have met four days a week for months. Otto von Bismarck  was so disdainful toward the liberal bourgeoisie as to ‘invent’ the Welfare State in partnership with a Socialist. Lassalle died a few months later (August 1864) while duelling, probably over a woman.

The above factors largely justify the tranquillity of German workers. But an even more fundamental element is that, before Adolf Hitler perverted his nation’s minds and hearts, the German people was specifically virtuous, the most profound and ethically motivated people in Europe. The practice of serene discipline and rightfulness was ingrained in the collective character.

The famed Prussian miller who refused King, Frederick the Great, the possibility to buy his modest property, so expounded his self-assurance by stating that “There are judges in Berlin.” And Martin Luther had based his religious revolution on the belief that his imperial, half-German master, Charles V, had to respect the rights of the German soul. Four centuries later it was the inequitable Treaty of Versailles that inflamed the German anger to the point of opening the way to Hitler, the pitiless Avenger.

New Germans, after tragically learning the lessons of two World Wars and of Auschwitz, have gone back to their lofty heritage.

Massimo Calderazzi is an author and journalist.

In Bolivia we have a case truly emblematic of the times we live in. It seems beyond doubt that this poor nation of central South America is very rich in lithium, a metal that presently is reputed to be the best for the production of batteries. Today, batteries are ubiquitous, but will become extremely vital if and when they become the sole source of power for cars. One advantage of lithium is that it is the lightest (or the second lightest) among metals. Bolivia’s salt flats hide vast deposits of said ore, which elsewhere on earth does exist, but not in as concentrated an area as the four-thousand sq mile area in Southern Bolivia. Somebody has remarked that this country is the Saudi Arabia of lithium.

Presumably, Bolivian experts have long been aware of their resource, but in the past did not possess the money and the know-how to mine and process the raw lithium carbonate. Recently, the La Paz government of President Evo Morales has built a pilot plant on the edge of Salar de Uyùni, near the border with Chile, not far from the Potosì area. Potosì’s mines were so rich as to provide Spain fabulous loads of silver.

In the past two centuries, Bolivia has been lacking both a colonial master and a national economy advanced enough to develop lithium (and, of course, batteries only emerged in the 20th century). A number of car manufacturers, including Toyota, seem to have failed in securing rights on the mineral. President Morales looks firm in his mission to create a state lithium industry advanced enough to supply the world’s batteries. By the way, the government of Colombia too appears to be doing well in the projects to develop its abundant minerals.

It’s conceivable that other deserts or dry, salty areas of the world, namely in Africa, hold minerals of some value. Several reasons explain why the latter have not been exploited, even discovered. Technological trends come first. Regarding Bolivia, before well into the twenties of past century batteries were not in demand, so lithium was neglected. Still, factors such as poverty and backwardness were even more decisive. So, undeveloped countries must either empower aggressive rulers who can learn from President Morales, or forget nationalistic rhetoric of sovereignty, in order to attract foreign investment.

What is really mandatory is that natural resources are processed locally, with the highest possible labor content. Mechanization and automation are not imperative where wages  (to be absolutely raised) are very low. The grave misdeed of past colonialism was mining and taking away commodities, so subjected populations got almost no benefit. Even more important is denying local politicians or chieftains the possibility of stealing the wealth created by development. This problem is enormous- this is why in many former colonies’ victories on poverty are not compatible with national sovereignty. Part of the latter must be dislodged by humanitarian neocolonialism, the very opposite of historic colonialism.

We read or hear a lot about the rise of worldwide unemployment, while not so much on the different social reactions to the loss of jobs or incomes across the world. Most of the little we know is vague or impressionistic- that Americans are rather tolerant about the ambushes of capitalism; that the French cherish their revolutionary heritage and still practice rebellion occasionally; that Germans dislike striking; that Spanish anarchists have quieted down; and so on and so forth. Stereotypes are misleading, although they often describe realities or are ultimately vindicated by facts.

Recently, employees of a number of French companies detained or even kidnapped their managers to prevent them from terminating jobs or transferring operations elsewhere. In France and Italy, industrial workers, miners and combative farmers tend to blockade highways, airports and railroad stations in order to forcibly affirm their claims. They also climb on roofs, cranes and other tall structures, install themselves there for days and nights in the cold, so reporters and cameras can rush to report on their daredevil protests. Things like these seem to be uncommon, say, in Scandinavia.

Some situations, while understandable from a human perspective, challenge common sense. For years, Fiat in Italy and Renault in France have been moving production to countries where labor and/or other costs are lower. Naturally, employees resist moves that destroy their jobs. But in specific cases, their demands border on the absurd. It’s common knowledge that the world automotive industry expanded too much, and that overcapacity became huge. Consequently, output had to be reduced. In the case of the Fiat plant in Termini Imerese, Sicily, the company has insisted that the costs of making cars there are so exorbitant that paying salaries and taxes without making cars would lower the losses of said plant. The result? The Termini Imerese operation will be terminated in a year or so. The management will now strive to determine a line of production that is not focused on automobile production. This is for the additional reason that many urban administrations everywhere are discouraging or even forbidding car traffic in city centers as to limit pollution. In the meantime, Fiat shut all her plants in Italy for two weeks.

The Termini Imerese unions simply said no- the plant must continue to produce cars that don’t sell, or that sell at a heavy loss. They argue that for a whole century, Fiat received giant subsidies from the government, so in the current crisis the company must return what received. Also, that the automotive orientation of the local factory must remain, even if alternatives are offered. Eventually unionized workers risk losing everything, should any prospective buyer of the plant conclude that said workforce is unreasonably combative.

At Pomigliano, in Southern Italy, at the site of another Fiat plant, a number of workers even threatened to set themselves on fire, should their jobs disappear.  Suicide is such a tragedy that no facetious remark is permissible. However, it’s evident that they would not accept working in nearby farms and plantations (where black laborers toil, but are increasingly discriminated), even if government subsidies would significantly add to farm wages. Picking oranges is heavy work, pressing keys on car-making robots is not.

Suicidal threats are something that one would expect in India (where some persons are said to kill themselves so that remorse will punish their enemies), or in Japan, where stoic, heroic sacrifices are a national tradition, rather than in sunny Pomigliano, not far from Naples. Manufacturing activities have spread so much worldwide that situations like Pomigliano, Termini Imerese and the kidnapping of French managers may happen everywhere. Whether behavior to defend jobs and incomes are going to stay different or become similar is a question that can only get vague and tentative answers.

The African uprising in Rosarno, in Southern Italy, attracted a lot of reporters, and they duly uttered their indignation at the treatment of the illegal African laborers- very low pay, barbarous lodgings and so on and so forth. Unquestionably, somewhat better accommodations should have been provided, somewhat higher wages paid. However, said reporters were not credible judges of a very complex issue at the heart of the problem.

The facts are widely known: tangerines and oranges are the crops to be harvested in Calabria from mid-November until the end of winter. In recent years, up to 2000 African laborers came to pick fruits. In the previous 15 years, the influx of foreigners was smaller and did not result in disturbances. This year, however, was different. Criminal (if not homicidal) shooting by one or two local thugs, possibly mafiosi, wounded a few immigrants and a violent tumult erupted in which African rioters seriously damaged property, assailed locals and policemen. The white counter-violence was so forceful that the Africans then risked a modern-day lynching. Once the waters calmed, they had to be transferred to distant districts.

The evidence of racism is scant. The Calabrian mafia, known as the ‘ndrangheta, is a serious evil, but its activities aren’t specifically aimed against immigrants or Africans. The truth is. local growers demand low-cost seasonal laborers as market conditions hardly permit them to offer significantly better wages.  Their produce is sold by bulk at 5 to 6 eurocents per kilo. If farmers were to pay laborers much more than 25 euros a day, it would not be worth gathering the crops in the first place. “A large part of the crop will rot on the trees,” a leading grower stated a few days ago. An additional incentive not to harvest is that the European subsidies to growers are related to the acreage of a farmer’s lands, not to the quantities he harvests.

Market laws never obey philanthropic instincts. Do all California farmers pay good wages to illegal laborers from Mexico?

Of course, politicians and the church are both exerting pressure in favor of a more charitable treatment of immigrants. But the effect of said pressure will be weak. Nobody can be forced to harvest crops at a loss.

Rosarno’s growers have made other serious mistakes in addition to failing to provide decent shelter for their migrant laborers. They made a major error in thinking that they could afford to shun manual labor with the delusion that their operations could be expanded simply relying on ‘imported’ cheap hands, and that their exertion would be limited to supervising the toil their workers from their cars. Of course, social mobility in Italy is such that the children of peasants go to college and consequently detest picking fruit.

Perhaps intensive farming has expanded too much; it may have to shrink. If this happens, less manual laborers will be needed and the immigrant condition will further deteriorate. To add to Rosarno’s problems, are the imports of citrus fruit from abroad. Retail prices in Northern markets are so low that harvest costs must be low. If ever Italian (or Spanish, French, Greek etc.) intensive farmers will be forced to raise wages, the increases will be miniscule and very little private money will go to build decent shelters for immigrants.

While in Rosarno illegal immigrants were some 2000, the whole of Southern Italy does not have less than 150,000. Any (unlikely) plan to give substantial help to laborers would be thwarted by the current law, which theoretically punishes illegal immigration. Does America build homes for its illegals ?

The problem is much larger, almost planetary. In Italy, probably one million out of the 5 million immigrants lack acceptable living conditions. In fact, throughout Europe many million homes are required for those immigrants who live in squalor. But while only a small fraction of the immigrants could pay market rate rents, taxpayer money would have to build or subsidize these shelters.

It’s almost guaranteed that taxpayers will say ‘no’. But should they say ‘yes’, building millions of almost free homes will be the wrong choice. More immigrants will come and integration will become more chimerical.  African countries will remain poor, having lost their most enterprising young. A better solution would be to prioritize investments to fight poverty in Africa and elsewhere. To do this, we shall have to import less cheap laborers, less farm hands, and less maids.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Racial Rows In Reggio Calabria (plastic.com)
• Shooting at immigrants: an Italian tragedy (liberalconspiracy.org)
• Looking Past the Facade of Italian City After Riots (starting-points.blogspot.com)
• Pope call to Italy over migrants (news.bbc.co.uk)