Family sabotage

The topic proposed by Gabriele starts from a shared premise: the need to increase productivity to address the public debt and the recession in Italy. The idea that a country with high public debt can benefit from greater productive capacity and a healthier balance between production and consumption is an economic principle widely recognized. The citation of the data on Italian public debt, among the highest in Europe, is correct and supported by Eurostat data which consistently place Italy among the countries with the highest debt/GDP ratio.

However, the analysis deviates from a rigorous logic and a data-driven approach when it delves into the causes and solutions. The assertion that high debt is solely due to insufficient production and excessive consumption is an oversimplification of a complex macroeconomic problem, influenced also by historical factors, public spending, taxation, demographic dynamics and interest rates.

The first proposed solution, reducing consumption through the reduction of consumers, is interpreted through the lens of the "great reset" as a conspiracy of the "world masters" to immobilize and impoverish the masses.

This is a highly speculative and conspiratorial reading of the concept of "Great Reset," which in its official formulations by entities like the World Economic Forum focuses on themes of sustainability, economic resilience, and inclusivity, not on a deliberate reduction in population or generalized impoverishment. No specific data or events are provided to support this extreme interpretation, making it an unverifiable claim based on an alternative narrative not supported by direct evidence. Economically, a drastic reduction in consumers and their purchasing power would be counterproductive even for large corporations, which depend on demand for their products and services.

The second solution, increasing productivity through the promotion of entrepreneurship, is a valid economic objective often promoted by governments and institutions. Gabriele's criticism focuses on why governors do not promote it, attributing the cause to a conflict of interest: lobbying by "big corporations" that would pay politicians to keep the masses as workers and not as competitors. The existence of lobbying and the influence of large companies on government policies are documented facts, with transparency records attesting to their activity both nationally and at the European level.

However, the claim that this translates into a systematic and generalized conspiracy to actively suppress entrepreneurship and deliberately keep the masses in "poverty, misery" is an extreme generalization and a very serious accusation that, in the text, is not supported by specific evidence or concrete examples of laws created "specifically" to prevent the birth of new businesses or to impoverish the population. Many governments, on the contrary, implement policies to support SMEs and innovation. The idea that "we are worse off and they are better off" is a zero-sum logic that does not take into account the fact that a healthy and prosperous economy, with a qualified workforce and a wide consumer base, tends to benefit even large businesses.

The distinction between "good" entrepreneurs (who do not resort to lobbying) and "bad" ones (who do) introduces a moral judgment. The prediction that "bad" entrepreneurs will "make the end of the rat" due to the disappearance of the masses as workers and consumers is a logical consequence deriving from the previously established premises, but such premises (the deliberate intention to impoverish and reduce the masses) are, as said, highly speculative and unsupported.

The analogy of falling from 50 meters is evocative but it is based on an extreme and unproven outcome of the actions attributed to these entrepreneurs.

In summary, the text presents a mix of valid economic principles (the importance of productivity) with highly speculative and conspiratorial interpretations of socio-economic and political dynamics. The most extreme conclusions (the plot to reduce consumers, the deliberate suppression of entrepreneurship to keep the masses in misery) lack rigorous logical analysis and direct empirical support, instead relying on a narrative of "deception" and "truth" that asks the reader to accept a series of unproven statements as reality. The final call to action for the "last" to become "first" is motivational but it rests entirely on the acceptance of this worldview, which mixes partially correct observations with theories unsupported by concrete evidence.