(… because there is not only the PD: there are also the piddini, who just like the grillini are not – only – those registered with the 5 Star Movement, they are not, they piddini, necessarily members of the PD: we have many also among us, even here …)
A cojone poro in the black toilet, and massimo_bad here, raised the following objection to me:
massimo_bad left a new comment on your post " The PD and healthcare ":
Apart from the obvious thanks for the explanation, however, it seems to me that inflation is not taken into account.
The 122 billion in 2021, adjusted for expected inflation, should correspond to something close to 140 billion in 2025.
Unless I'm talking bullshit, in which case I apologize.
Published by massimo_bad on Goofynomics on 23 October 2023, 16:33
The objection is not unfounded, if made in admissible tones, such as those of maximum, it is admissible, but it is not that it was not foreseen, and the answer in this case is a question: so what ? It's not that inflation exists only for us and not for the Best: therefore if he had allocated less money than us in nominal terms, he would have allocated even less in real terms, i.e. without inflation.
The calculation can be done, it is not difficult and perhaps it is useful: just take the data from the previous tables and purify them for expected inflation, with a greater or lesser degree of refinement.
Let's proceed. To be magnanimous, considering that basically the rest of the world didn't understand how it would go (you who are here saw that it went like this), I will try to be absolutely scrupulous. I will therefore apply to Draghi's figures what the IMF had said about the evolution of inflation in April 2022 (i.e. the forecasts that were in his info set ), and to Meloni's figures what the IMF said about inflation in April 2022 2023 (i.e. our info set). To deflate the data I will set the consumer price index equal to one in 2021 (in order to have comparable data in the two scenarios).
You are ready?
Meanwhile, the original and normalized consumer price indices are these:
At this point we can see how much Draghi's nominal 128 billion for 2024 corresponded in real terms, deflated first with the inflation he expected and then with what now seems a more reliable estimate, just as we can compare the 134 billion nominal that Schillaci speaks of if adjusted with the currently expected consumer price index.
Draghi's nominal 128 billion for 2024 was actually 116.9 billion real at 2021 prices with inflation estimated in 2022, and 110.6 at 2021 prices with inflation estimated in 2023 (i.e. today). Schillaci's nominal 134 billion for 2024 are 115.0 billion in 2024 with inflation estimated in 2023. So next year in real terms we are two billion below Draghi if we apply his rosy inflation expectations to his data (kept low either out of ignorance or to "inflate" the real figure), but 5 billion above if we apply the latest inflation forecasts to him and to us.
The correct objection (which however neither the shrewd opponents nor the diligent information operators have made, focusing on the ratios to GDP), is that in real terms healthcare spending has nevertheless fallen. But if we put it this way, the fact remains that it also fell during the Government of the Best, and that with the current Government the trend, if it has not reversed (because yes, in real terms it has not reversed), has however very attenuated.
Honestly, it is annoying that those who created the conditions to prevent the trend reversal (the "Europeanists", i.e. those who are not coming with me to Brussels today, so to speak…), reproach with specious arguments those who at least attenuated it . Certain topics may also make an impression on their fans. We laugh about it and carry on.
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2023/10/i-piddini-e-la-sanita.html on Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:12:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.