Mr Kubicki,
I think you have quite right with your warning and then a loss of identity, self-dissolution of the FDP. I have a few weeks ago in an essay also tries to draw attention to the problem (see http://stefanleichnersblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/mehr-freiheit-wagen-anspruch-realitaet.html , supplemented http://stefanleichnersblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/finanzmarktkrise-und-wirtschaftssystem.html ).
I say this but not from a partisan perspective. For I am not politically active and I have no party-political preferences. I say this as an economist who is familiar with competi-tion and market economic theories and the resulting economic role models very carefully. My goal is a prosperous economy.
As an economist, you know, of course, saying that our political landscape is seen as influenced by market advocates and "non-interventions nest" and Keynesians and "interventionists" - in the broadest sense, including industrial policy. Both the FDP and the Union are market proponents, and as such fundamentally liberal in the economic Theory anchored.
I see in this context, three problems that will lead both the FDP and the Union to a progressive loss of identity
First has over the years an increasing detachment from the identity-giving mission statement liberal theory ("free competition" or "liberty concept") and an increasing orientation of the practical politics of interests took place, which is accepted by the public less and less, because while the common good of the policy has been lost. Understood in this way economic policy is no "total" economic policy and has to be more appropriate macroeconomic distortions lead. From a citizen perspective, it will therefore only be understood as a label when politicians talk of the social market economy and the concept of freedom. Speech and action are in a very perceptible contradiction.
Second is - especially because of it - with the FDP and the Union has no economic policy overall design more visible and so is the economic vision or, if you will, orientation, thus lead where government action should have been lost. It is not enough to say that they wanted such as growth and employment, if citizens do not realize at the same time can ensure that the actions in this Direction acts. Citizens missing m. E. credible, orientation imaging power of an economic policy concept.
Third have forgotten both the FDP and the Union of distinguishing between the "free goal" and economic "freedom of design" (as a way to this target). Therefore, both parties did not become aware that the outbreak of the financial crisis with the failure of "freedom approach" taken in context, but that did not that they represent "freedom goal" discredited. It is all the more fatal, that see both parties' conception of freedom "and" free goal "as a thing, because it is so - No need - at the mercy of the liberal economic theory, or have a specific plan to achieve the "freedom Objective bound. The liberal economic theory, respectively, the economic mainstream (neoclassical), however, with the financial market crisis itself plunged into a deep crisis because he foresaw the crisis neither could explain it and give the policy, no focus, could they overcome the crisis well . This applies to the present, by the way also for Keynesian economics. The crisis can erupt at any time, because the fundamental problems have not really understood yet solved. Governments have bought for much money, only time but it does not make sense used and they have been involved at the same time new problems.
the articles in SPIEGEL ONLINE, I understand that your party colleague Frank Schäffler the FDP as you see in a deep crisis, which he believes could be overcome by a return to the liberal doctrine in other words, the "freedom" concept.
The one right answer to this is to me in point 1 above problem and it may be in response to the problem mentioned in point 2, but only if a sufficiently high level of certainty that such a move yielding visible results.
I think, however, are not likely, and would justify this here only briefly with a reference to a comparison of the postwar situation in Germany, the liberal policy Erhard was very successful, with the current situation. In the postwar period, all markets were in their infancy, there was a high demand for everything. Today we have mostly saturated, dominated by a few large corporations with significant market growth and employment problems. Against this background, it is evident in my view, that a liberal policy, unlike the war is not the right medicine.
Schäffler proposed solution is, if I understood him correctly, at the point of me 3 above problem is not just and it is so m. E. The FDP can not out of crisis. More than that, I think it probably little that any party - that includes the Greens - to building its voters, unless they have no one of interest independent and can offer a choice of economic or market theory base standing economic policy design, the other side of liberal / neo-classical and Keynesian-cal teaching is. Because due to the financial market and economic crisis, both parties have lost in the same way much of its explanatory power and guidance.
It can not, therefore, in the crisis-ridden parties to different measures or policy blocks to go and not simply to return to a no longer fully viable economic theoretical foundation. It is m. E. a conceptual-functional realignment.
It was my wish to draw your attention to this dimension of the problem.
Are Yours
Stefan L. Eichner
0 comments:
Post a Comment