It's a good article and the central point is valid, but the author shows a strong left-leaning stance that undermines it all for no good reason. Clear tells about his ideology are in his portrayal of Cardoso as a "neoliberal" and his romanticized presentation of Lula and Haddad.

And that is a shame, because a more neutral historian would clearly acknowledge that Lula (and the Worker's Party) were given the chance to lead the country into a cultural shift and finally realize a project for the country, but failed precisely because they saw themselves as the "new elites" and played the exact same kind of power games to keep themselves on top.

This, precisly this. The author's stance on the Left (as shown in his other articles and personal blog), his mention of Lava Jato as corrupt and putting FHC as neoliberal and Haddad as center-left really undermines all the writing of what could be, in the hands of a more experienced and neutral author, an interesting reflection.

For those wondering what this person means:

FHC is socialist, although center-left. Haddad is normal left, fully Marxist but not communist.

Lava Jato corruption... well it is complicated. Lula indeed did deserve to go to jail, but news written by Glenn Greenwald, that is married to a politician with ties to Lula, gave fuel for the Lula appointed supreme court to free Lula (and a ton of other criminals alongside him... they kinda buthered the constitution and also created a serious security issue). That said, the news that Glenn Greenwald reported isn't a lie, Lava Jato did had issues, personally I don't think these issues should have resulted in Lula being freed, but the issues do exist.

I don't see anything wrong in characterizing Cardoso as "neoliberal," albeit of a "third-way" strand, like other politicians from the 1990s such as Tony Blair or Bill Clinton.

And about Lula & Haddad, well... I would say your characterization of them is as biased and wrong as you claim the author to be; it's equally ideologically charged, but in the opposite direction.

So the result is that you didn't really show anything wrong with the author, but simply expressed your ideological distaste with his leftism; while we, the readers of both the article and your comment, are left to choose based on nothing more than purely our own ideological inclinations.

The fact that you consider that the author's political opinions undermine the piece tells more about you than it tells about the article.

Further, how would you categorize Cardoso in the political spectrum? I mean, that is the one consensus about his administration, which encompassed privatization of state services, privatization of banks, outsourcing of workers and other state services, opening of the national market to foreign companies.

> I was in agreement with the general premise of the article but this wild claim written as a fact makes me question all the other claims that I lack the knowledge to challenge.

I think that's a good reaction, the "questioning" - now go verify them (the other claims) maybe? Also, maybe temper expectations, too -- I read a lot of stuff in which I find myself agreeing and disagreeing in various places, or seeing correct and incorrect things all at once. But I try to resist the instinct to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't mean to pile on but I see a lot of this sort of reaction to things these days and I'm curious about it.

> wild claim written as a fact

How should the author have written it instead? "I believe that Italian elites are desperate to remain part of the euro, and I also believe that the Euro subjects it to penury and destroys its future" ? In my mind that's not that different. It's an essay -- it's understood that the entire thing is a "claim", often a wild one.

Your quote doesn't seem to say anything such. It's the decision of the elites, not euro itself.

Also, I don't see how it's that far off the mark. Germany enjoys the benefits of strong exports, at the cost of the periphery. It's actually a pretty well known and often commented about fact.

Italy is one of the biggest losers from joining the euro system.

Honestly curious what part (not regional) of Germany should have directly benefitted in your opinion. I was too young at the time (just finishing school) but in the span of 1-2 years it seemed that all prices were adjusted back to the old value, but we had traded in our money at 2:1. The beers I bought in a pub were 4-5 DM and not soon after it was 3 EUR, that's definitely not due to inflation. The difference was basically so shockingly large that I actively wondered how this would work out in the next years.

You mentioned exports, so maybe "the economy as a whole" or everyone already having their company running. Also I've seen housing prices go sideways in the 00s, but not sure if that's completely unrelated.

Beside Germany, which other countries have massively benefitted from the Euro?

The Netherlands and some eastern ones.

Eastern European developing states.

>>"It is an absolutely false hyperbole to claim that the Euro is the cause of economic decline and the destruction of Italian future."

I think that, if that's your opinion, you don't understand the Euro very well.

The Euro is a monetary union without fiscal capacity. It's so bad designed that in order to survive it has to break its own rules every few years, but then we made like if that didn't happen and everything is OK.

Concerning the euro monetary union, I would recommend Michael Pettis on the issue:

- https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/58983

- (Paywall) https://www.ft.com/content/b79f5074-4069-3662-bfc8-64e101054...