For weeks now, always moves more citizens, as try to politics and German Rail to impose "Stuttgart 21", the billion-dollar prestige project for the reconstruction of the Stuttgart head station into an underground transit station, against the fierce resistance of Stuttgart. An increasing number of reports, details and expert statements, which speak against the project reach, in the public. They raise the question of how could it ever be possible for "Stuttgart 21" has been approved by all political committees.
Thus, the development here again reached a point where the massive strain on the credibility of the policy - as in the federal government in late 2009 decided tax benefits for hoteliers was the case . Is "Stuttgart 21" is another example of political patronage, that is, in a particular case for a "deal" between politicians and the German railway, about its relevance and cost the citizens should be kept in the dark?
even more doubts in that direction sparked currently reporting on the compromise adopted by the Government to extend the lifetimes of nuclear power plants. There were already ahead of the decision conflict and criticism - partly because of the Germany-wide advertising campaign of the nuclear lobby, which the federal government should be moved to extend the maturities. Sun said about the Federal Cartel Office (1) competition policy concerns about the maturity of which a based advice of local authorities (2) . Moreover presented example, the Advisory Council of the Federal Government for the Environment (SRU) is (3) that an extension of the nuclear run-times in the context of climate policy objectives and also with a view to ensuring the power supply is not required. The Council also noted that a permanent side by side would make use of conventional and renewable power generation increasing the system inefficient and unnecessarily expensive. Therefore, the experts called for the federal government to the upcoming renewal of the power plant to use for the conversion to renewable energies.
also saw allegations of Federal Minister Rainer Brüderle (FDP), a report think about security of supply in the energy industry with data on the importance of the nuclear industry back (4) and it was concluded in view of the forthcoming decision on the nuclear power plant run times, he could explain the dispensability of nuclear power. Extremely critical
was also commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Economics Date created external energy report, which was to serve the decision-making. The sharpest substantive criticism of this report came from the Federal Environment Ministry (5) , the "outrageous mistake" complained and manipulation allegations: There are obviously aware of worst-case assumptions were used, in order to discredit the climate and the restructuring of energy supply, are also in spite of otherwise order only the costs but not the benefits of an ambitious climate policy have been considered, also cut in the report because of questionable assumptions about the current pricing scenarios better nuclear power plant with long running times.
But all the professional expertise and criticism have been able to do nothing.
This in itself already raises the question, what is the responsible of the Politicians decided nuclear compromise and actually supports what he seeks in the end. But now also get still more details to the public, to direct, as in the case of the legislation on tax breaks for hoteliers, "Stuttgart 21", reinforced the view on this question. These include reports that demonstrate that
- the adopted life extension of nuclear power leads to an average of 12 years actually significantly longer terms. (6) This has to do with the projected utilization of nuclear power. It is not calculated in years, but in years of full-load hours. The load forecast of the Federal Government for this purpose is, according to expert opinion very optimistic. If it is not reached by the power plant operators, the term is extended by the difference of the reactors. The estimated Ökoinstitut so that extended the term of the NPP actually 14 years. The Institute for Sustainable Solutions and Innovations (Isusi) occurs even at 15 years;
- nuclear compromise allows the energy companies despite fuel tax, and voluntary special substantial additional income. (7) can According to calculations by the Öko-Institut pocket the four major energy provider E.on, RWE, Vattenfall and EnBW together more than 57 billion euros in additional profits when the price of electricity remains constant. With a moderate increase in electricity prices result, however, additional gains of more than 96 billion euros. Electricity prices remain constant, 46 percent of these additional profits skimmed off, while electricity prices rise, however moderate, the power plant operators must however give only 28 percent. It is in the bill but has not taken into account that the nuclear power plant expected to run longer than the stated Duch average 12 years (see above);
- the federal government apparently plans to reduce substantially the level of protection for nuclear power plants, for which also the Atomic Energy Act amended should be. (8) It's about safety Requirements and measures for the prevention of risks. The obligation of the nuclear power plant operators to upgrade, especially the so-called Altreaktoren should be largely abolished. Essential for the power plant operators, above all, expensive modernization and retrofit needs to be reclassified and pushed it for many years. With the proposed new deadlines for such costs for older equipment fall under the report virtually no more. In accordance of the bill will also seek to claim right of citizens are restricted;
- it seems a "deal" between the federal government and energy companies are (9) , which was fixed by contract, the existence and contents are kept secret.
is thus the process continues the erosion of political credibility, which began with the debate over tax breaks for hotel owners under the heading of "political patronage" at the beginning of the year and in the course of "Stuttgart 21" and "nuclear compromise" accelerated . The surveys conducted by pollsters it documented. More seriously still, it emerged that more and more, as is policy made in Germany and how little this can make the claim of the government policies, in which repeatedly stress that their objective is the "social market economy".
"Free Markets"? "Competition"? Prosperity for all "-? Do we have the
No one will question still good conscience." Can answer yes to the contrary shows mentioned here examples of how policy is made, that we of the ever- remove the "social market economy." It is quite clear that a negative effect on the functioning and the economic results of the market impact when policy is made in favor of specific interests and concerns. It is no wonder that nine out of ten Germans "market economy" increasingly negative assessment (10). because politicians always like to give while ago, they wanted a "social market economy". In fact, they run too often focused on specific policy interests, but to disguise this and sell their decisions to the citizens and strengthening the market economy or market economy needed ". The fact that this has aroused so long no suspicion among the citizens, can only be explained by the fact that the few really have an idea of what conditions must be met and policies must be designed so that the (market) economy prospers, and when all benefit from it.
Economists in this Respect, no help. Until the outbreak of the crisis, they seemed to know the conditions under which the economy is running smoothly and growing. Since then, however, clear that they can say very little.
Citizens, assess our current economic system are skeptical, quite so. Only it is not just more of a fair competition-driven economic system, but a specific interest groups and corporatist controlled by a so-called economy . Such is, if you look at the various possible forms of economic systems as a continuous scale presents, at the end points the theoretical extreme forms of "free market" and "planned economy" are somewhere in the middle. The more pronounced the influence of groups - associations, unions, lobbyists - the policy is and the stronger the competition will be undermined, the stronger the plan outline of the economic system.
extent, it is also a logical consequence of the above-described political practice that in our industrial policy now has such a high priority - and this by no means, as the name suggests, is focused only on the industrial sector. In fact, the classical form of industrial policy at the largest companies in each major Sectors, the so-called national champions focused. And that's what we can observe, such as in the energy sector, the automotive industry, pharmaceutical and chemical industry and the banks. The policy addresses the concerns in these sectors, while based on their interests. The link is very often lobbyists and their doings in turn owes the term "political patronage".
In fact, the described "classical form" of industrial policy - other shapes are certainly possible - aimed at international competitiveness, growth and employment, closely related to the "planification" of France in the 60's, under which the government their Groups on the establishment of perennial plans also controls. This policy thus contained elements of a planned economy. The proximity to the planned economy is so far evident. The present form of industrial or political patronage in Germany, however, is not dissimilar to that policy, which was derived from the so-called teachings of Rudolf Hilferding Stamokap (the financial capital, 1910). "Stamokap" stands for "state-monopoly capitalism." The state sees this as a sort of repair operation of capitalism and is a late phase of the same, in which - according to Hilferding - shareholders, private entrepreneurs have supplanted the free competition of dominant monopolies and cartels been replaced, and increases the economic power of the banks.
It is debatable how far-reaching analogies are. You can not deny. The current economic reality is characterized by Hilferding not dissimilar. Disturbing fact is this: Hilferding, the described expression of capitalism, in accordance with the Stamokap theory, the interests of corporations and the "money pool" coincide with those of the state broadly, as the last, considered the "dying" phase of capitalism. While today we talk of "(classical) industrial policy," but this is also by an increasing coincidence of the interests of corporations and the "money pool" (the "financial markets") that characterized the state. The state is now de facto "repairer of capitalism" - in the wake of the financial market and the ensuing Great Depression that is so far become clear when the governments are just that most actors (banks, corporations) with particular financial aid thus enabled to continue as before. Politics is thus the same. The advocates and supporters of the "classic industrial policy," however argue that this policy would have implications for international competitiveness (primarily of the "National champions"), but also improve economic growth and Employment lead. Now it looks like but not really when you look at data and facts. According to Hilferding, this policy is indicative of the phase of decline of the capitalist system.
far so you have to follow Hilferding not, that's clear. Today we would call it maybe as "doomsayers". Remains even when the opposition. Who is right? What does traditional industry or political patronage? Growth and employment, or the opposite?
This is something to pondering, I think.
"Free Markets"? "Competition"? Prosperity for all "-? Do we have the
No one will question still good conscience." Can answer yes to the contrary shows mentioned here examples of how policy is made, that we of the ever- remove the "social market economy." It is quite clear that a negative effect on the functioning and the economic results of the market impact when policy is made in favor of specific interests and concerns. It is no wonder that nine out of ten Germans "market economy" increasingly negative assessment (10). because politicians always like to give while ago, they wanted a "social market economy". In fact, they run too often focused on specific policy interests, but to disguise this and sell their decisions to the citizens and strengthening the market economy or market economy needed ". The fact that this has aroused so long no suspicion among the citizens, can only be explained by the fact that the few really have an idea of what conditions must be met and policies must be designed so that the (market) economy prospers, and when all benefit from it.
Economists in this Respect, no help. Until the outbreak of the crisis, they seemed to know the conditions under which the economy is running smoothly and growing. Since then, however, clear that they can say very little.
Citizens, assess our current economic system are skeptical, quite so. Only it is not just more of a fair competition-driven economic system, but a specific interest groups and corporatist controlled by a so-called economy . Such is, if you look at the various possible forms of economic systems as a continuous scale presents, at the end points the theoretical extreme forms of "free market" and "planned economy" are somewhere in the middle. The more pronounced the influence of groups - associations, unions, lobbyists - the policy is and the stronger the competition will be undermined, the stronger the plan outline of the economic system.
extent, it is also a logical consequence of the above-described political practice that in our industrial policy now has such a high priority - and this by no means, as the name suggests, is focused only on the industrial sector. In fact, the classical form of industrial policy at the largest companies in each major Sectors, the so-called national champions focused. And that's what we can observe, such as in the energy sector, the automotive industry, pharmaceutical and chemical industry and the banks. The policy addresses the concerns in these sectors, while based on their interests. The link is very often lobbyists and their doings in turn owes the term "political patronage".
In fact, the described "classical form" of industrial policy - other shapes are certainly possible - aimed at international competitiveness, growth and employment, closely related to the "planification" of France in the 60's, under which the government their Groups on the establishment of perennial plans also controls. This policy thus contained elements of a planned economy. The proximity to the planned economy is so far evident. The present form of industrial or political patronage in Germany, however, is not dissimilar to that policy, which was derived from the so-called teachings of Rudolf Hilferding Stamokap (the financial capital, 1910). "Stamokap" stands for "state-monopoly capitalism." The state sees this as a sort of repair operation of capitalism and is a late phase of the same, in which - according to Hilferding - shareholders, private entrepreneurs have supplanted the free competition of dominant monopolies and cartels been replaced, and increases the economic power of the banks.
It is debatable how far-reaching analogies are. You can not deny. The current economic reality is characterized by Hilferding not dissimilar. Disturbing fact is this: Hilferding, the described expression of capitalism, in accordance with the Stamokap theory, the interests of corporations and the "money pool" coincide with those of the state broadly, as the last, considered the "dying" phase of capitalism. While today we talk of "(classical) industrial policy," but this is also by an increasing coincidence of the interests of corporations and the "money pool" (the "financial markets") that characterized the state. The state is now de facto "repairer of capitalism" - in the wake of the financial market and the ensuing Great Depression that is so far become clear when the governments are just that most actors (banks, corporations) with particular financial aid thus enabled to continue as before. Politics is thus the same. The advocates and supporters of the "classic industrial policy," however argue that this policy would have implications for international competitiveness (primarily of the "National champions"), but also improve economic growth and Employment lead. Now it looks like but not really when you look at data and facts. According to Hilferding, this policy is indicative of the phase of decline of the capitalist system.
far so you have to follow Hilferding not, that's clear. Today we would call it maybe as "doomsayers". Remains even when the opposition. Who is right? What does traditional industry or political patronage? Growth and employment, or the opposite?
This is something to pondering, I think.
addition recommended articles:
- price increases: Power customers must reckon with drastic impacts (v. 14:10:10)
- clamp communities: citizens in 2011 threatens unprecedented shock fees (by 18:10:10)
- clamp communities: citizens in 2011 threatens unprecedented shock fees (by 18:10:10)
- Lower Taxes: Corporations do not participate in budget consolidation (v. 18:10:10).
0 comments:
Post a Comment