The Taming of Capitalism!
42 Theses for a Fairer World!
Because of technological advances, it should actually a worldwide prosperity on German level be - at a regular working time of 20 hours per week mind you. Why is not, what's wrong?
Book by Manfred Julius Müller. In bookstores under the title "Only Fair Trade" for 5,- Euro as a print edition available (unfortunately only in the original German edition).
The technological and scientific progress tenfold productivity in the last 120 years approximately. Unfortunately, this beneficial development in many people has not arrived. Most of the world's population still lives in poverty. And in the old industrialized countries, labor income have actually declined over the last 37 years - where they had nevertheless actually (due to productivity growth) will have to double.
The government delegations of the G7 and G20 countries for decades trying to solve the worst problems of the world. But they have little success in their efforts. The international agreements that seek assiduously to fail again and again to the self-interest of countries. After tough negotiations it is enough (if at all) only to sluggish compromise formulas that hardly ever do good.
Is it not time to learn from the failures of the past and to develop new strategies? On the following pages I have set up 42 theses which provide a sustainable paradigm shift. Instead undeterred to rely on international agreements, it is important to utilize the well remaining room for maneuver of sovereign nation states. With specific measures they would be in fact very well able to act alone and to provoke international agreements on the back door.
To make the book clearly (and thus also the overall concept remains recognizable) have been many theories about which I've written long essays dealt with quite short. Who wants more clarification on these issues, she finds in my earlier writings (especially in my standard work "Das Kapital and globalization").
Flensburg, the August 10, 2017
Julius Müller, 24939 Flensburg (Flensburg has approx.
90,000 inhabitants and lies on the German-Danish
There is no equality of opportunity - even when it comes to forming opinions. While the capital (corporations, speculators, lobbyists, media, governments) can afford the best translators, I have to settle for a simple language program for financial reasons. I hope, however, that the text is nevertheless reasonably understandable and that no major mistakes have occurred. Thank you for your understanding.
Manfred Julius Müller, 24939 Flensburg (Flensburg has approx. 90,000 inhabitants and lies on the German-Danish border)
More Honesty: Departure from the Creative Accounting!
Openness and honesty seem to me still the basis for successful political considerations to be. Who schönt statistics to fool successes deceives not only the voters but eventually finds himself.
As an example I would like to wage developments since 1980 to lead (as a result of increased productivity still at least would have had to double) here. If you add all relevant changes (for example, the sharp fall in pension rights, the generally higher level of education of the labor force, the higher work requirements, the increase in shift work, unpaid overtime, etc.) concerns for almost all professions a clear negative (inflation-adjusted) net wages , This is actually perverse and would have neutral media and politicians to shake. But nothing like that happens! You trust the clumsy repression rhetoric ( "Never was it us as good as today!").
Not much more honest will to deal with the problem of mass unemployment. Although the official unemployment figures have increased tenfold since the 1960s, the general shortage of skilled labor is proclaimed slyly. The calculation has also been changed several times. Older long-term unemployed spoil no longer a statistic (as well as ABMler, 1-euro jobs, minimum-workers, spiking, etc.). In addition: Seven million part-timers actually looking for a full time job. Germany has a potential of nearly 50 million employees, but only 30 million people have (despite economic supportive cheap flood of money) through a social insurance job (often paid by collective bargaining). In other EU countries, the situation is still worse, but this is really of little consolation.
PS: If you want it, you might (without it big strikes), ban almost all unemployed gradually from statistics. You just need more people in ABM measures or stuck commit to training. Of course, the age limit could be further reduced. For 55-year-old're finally barely ver-indirectly. Is not it?
To incorrect conclusions and demands our proudly presented lead trade surpluses (annually more than 200 billion euros), is the envy of other states and blame. But there is this famous surplus at all? Is someone already had the idea that exports are often invented or exaggerated to swindle tax refunds? And that imports are like small expected or concealed reversed loving to save customs duties and value added tax? If one takes into account what German travelers introduce all duty unpaid from abroad and what bargain hunters untaxed via the Internet relate over the country? One wonders where have remained the trillion times the export surpluses that should have accumulated over the decades? Where they have dissipated? And (if it actually is) what an average citizen of these surpluses? Be it built in distant lands factories? And how come that actually foreign companies love to buy up German key technology companies, while in the opposite direction little running?
In many other areas I been able to gain the official figures little. I do not believe that Germany "at least" 300,000 immigrants needed annually (our population density is already twice as high as in Poland or France, and even ten times higher than in Sweden) for example.
Our inflation rate calculated every month seems to me very credible (where it is very important because it derives the income growth). The imaginary cart (the basis of all calculations) remains opaque (a well kept secret). Property prices and rents, for example, in many places skyrocketed, cheap apartments were renovated expensive and therefore unaffordable for many Altmieter. Where is all this reflects? Without transparency may (largely unnoticed) to a low inflation rate are served (which would affect the annual wage negotiations).
These examples should suffice to demonstrate the basic problem. One thing is clear: A Turkish figures lead to incorrect conclusions and thus political mistakes (which might explain the slow decline since 1980 in most Western cultures).
Why miss Fairtrade?
What actually prevents sovereign governments to have only fair trade products into the country? And what prevents them from taxing imports without certification high? Anyone objecting now, that's impossible, that would be far too complicated: Fairtrade products we've already positive examples abound. Then you could build, step by step. A range after another could be included. And the special tax on uncertified goods could be gradually raised (so that manufacturers have time to adjust to the Fairtrade trade). As for the control options: A Fair Trade Act would make the supply chains of major manufacturers transparent, which may have beneficial effects (less opportunities for fraud, counterfeiting, etc.). A control-effective support can be expected from the competition: She'll throw out self-interest a close eye on their competitors.
The perpetual worriers do not like change, of course, it should remain everything as it is, just not a rethink. Witness a gradual change of course a risk is hardly given. When it up to its expectations somewhere is just readjusted or it will wait until there are reliable results. the millions of accepting refugees If you can not muddling forever as before and then also accuse its own people a parasitism and convince her "our prosperity is based on the exploitation of developing countries." about the established guilt complex be justified? Each upright Germans would appreciate it if there were decent minimum wages, environmental, health and social standards in all parts of the world.
With national Fairtrade laws, international agreements and could easily enforce. If a state, for example, says it need not sign the Paris environmental agreements, stop increasing the Fairtrade import tax. Given every government is careful to consider whether a signature perhaps would not really make sense.
Does not make a Speech about the "International Division of Labor"!
The international division of labor is extremely counterproductive basically. It causes a higher resource and labor and pollutes the environment. Because it falls unnecessary transport costs, there are additional interpreters, lawyers, inspectors needed, it extended delivery times, it multiply possibilities of counterfeiting, illicit sales department, the patent infringements etc .. And taken as a whole, governments are losing more and more control about their own economy and the financial system.
For the global player, outsourcing expected mainly because of the large wage gaps. Because it succeeds admirably, systematically exploit workers in low-wage countries, relocation of production are still to success. Without this exploitation effect, the international division of labor would be a most unproductive nonsense. The "success" of the international division of labor follows the same principle as the former slave trade. Would the noble brand approve the cheap laborers a halfway human hourly wage, the system of international division of labor would collapse.
Elimination of Export Dependency!
Especially in Germany trying to still convince the population, all our prosperity is based on export successes. This old misconception dogmatized political thinking and leads to serious mistakes (established since 1980 to continued wage decrease). A high export also requires a high import quota: What is rarely considered. An unnecessary international exchange of goods does not create additional jobs and is counterproductive and harmful to the environment basically. There are also disadvantages arising from the global wage and tax competition. And: A high dependence on exports makes a state blackmail, at the mercy of the global economy and the global financial casino.
Those who claim that without high export ratio there can be no prosperity, do not know what he says. Even in logic such prosperity theory is foolish. Once accepted, there would be on earth only one habitable land (for example, Germany, France, the US or China) and all around there were only deserts and oceans - would be a high prosperity impossible in the absence of world trade? Hardly likely!
Customs Duties are not Evil!
The demonization of duties is hard to beat on deceit and hypocrisy. It castigates duties as protectionism, but at the same time uses any perversions in order to protect their own economy in other ways before the foreign dumping competition.
In Germany is subsidized to the point of no return, exports are exempt from VAT and there are industrial research on universities supported. Furthermore, is powered by the euro currency dumping and corporations can take absurd cheap loans due to the ECB's cheap money glut in claim (where exports are often hedged being generous to government guarantees). All of these (and many more) is not the focus of attention machinations prove to be far greater sins than the open and honest import duty. (Could be the lowering of non-wage costs are) where the customs has the huge advantage that it, rather than incur high costs, revenues brought.
The civilizations in antiquity owed their fabulous wealth usually the customs - and before the first World War, the emerging German Empire denied the lion's share of its revenue from the customs also. Today, all is forgotten, the international capital Lobby with them obedient media and "economic research institutes" has managed to outlaw the customs and as illiberal to present. Knowing that the duty-free trade given them unlimited power and degrades the governments of the nation states to petitioners.
So an end to the grotesque inch phobia! For global wage and tax differences of over 1,000 percent balancing, caring for justice duties are really nothing wrong, but objectively considered an absolute necessity, a self-defense measure (so that domestic producers have a chance to compete with other countries).
No Fear of the Future Stir!
Is the announced digital revolution is a threat to humanity? You have to worry about the loss of millions of jobs? Have nation states fear being swept away by the international competition?
I do not know what these scare tactics actually intended. A little more composure seems appropriate. Because technological progress is actually just something extremely positive. He is the key to greater prosperity and a better, more leisurely life.
The uneasy anxiety resulting from the global dumping destruction competition. In order to survive in the raging economic war, of their own nation-state must outdo his colleagues, technologically always one step ahead - to be not suspended.
At least, the traditional thinking that bona fide citizens is inoculated from politics and the media. I think this is implied catastrophic scenario for grossly exaggerated. And unnecessary, and even harmful. Because fueled anxiety makes man a slave of technology and puts him under pressure. so he should still afford work even better, lie down even better at school and university diplomas. For if the twisted in employment does not provide maximum performance, he loses his job and overall the German economy also considered the last four refuges industrial manufacturing (automotive and mechanical engineering, chemistry, pharmacy).
The result of the constantly increasing pressure to perform: the number of premature disability and mental patients is rapidly increasing, there are more and more underpaid Bad jobs and less powerful people fall by the wayside. Many workaholics only know their work and hardly have a private life.
It is another way! Because of the pressure to perform results solely from the accursed "international division of labor", the (in) -Freihandelswahn. If there were non, every major nation-state would (Germany for example) produce almost all its consumer goods and commodities themselves. Then would only ex to the extent and imported as it would be economically sensible.
In such a relaxed atmosphere, it would not really matter whether the digital revolution is delayed by several years or not. Then only will stop automated, which actually serves the productivity of its own economy. And this process can control sovereign every state.
We do not need the pressure from outside in order to continuously improve the quality of life of the population. A slower pace of technological revolution, a little more prudence and thoughtfulness does not hurt - it would do us all good. Because of hectic change and increasing demands lead to more and more stress. Many people feel like a long time on a treadmill, they must provide in their workplace as a top athlete daily peak performance in order not to go to the target list (losing their jobs).
The move away from the international division of labor would incidentally another advantage! The honest and insightful competition of Nations will take place today barely - because the trend-setting companies operate globally (to your heart's wage and tax dumping operate). It would be nice, you could learn something from the economic and social models of other states or back abschauen. Because this willingness, this cross-fertilization is, in our neoliberal globalization era (which we hope to overcome soon have) been lost.
Broach the Population Explosion!
The world population has quadrupled in just over 100 years. Today live on Earth about 7.5 billion people, although with respect to the environment and resources only three billion would be manageable - at least if you look at the Western standard of living than adequate.
Poverty, misery, hunger, civil wars and mass migrations are often excesses of over-population. Therefore, it is not acceptable if such a central problem is largely taboo. The consequences of unbridled population growth must come to the forefront in order to build up a corresponding sense of responsibility in all cultures and religions. Our media and politicians must not remain silent out of misguided consideration or beat around the bush.
Every day, the Germans are confronted with the ugly German past and recalls the original sins of their forefathers evil (in the eternal battle for Forgetting) - but a thousand times more important Übervölkerungsproblem finds no resonance. That needs to change!
Narrow Corporate Power!
Minimum Income Taxes for large Companies!
Many international corporations with billions in turnover in Germany pay here have little or no income taxes (because they allegedly do not generate profits calculated here). How many decades you look at this scandalous goings now up to? Why do not basically pay companies that implement more than 100 million euros in Germany in the year as the lowest limit a three- or four percent minimum corporate income tax? Then some of the dubious circus could save with disreputable tax havens.
Who is not in a position as a major corporation to achieve sustainable profits, has in my opinion, in a capitalist system does not exist. It is not clear why such economic zombies simply because of their size flattening legitimate, taxpaying SMEs. The profit is a basic principle of capitalism. Corporations that undermine this system, far more harm than good, they mutate into cancerous growth of a market economy.
Introduction of a Monopoly Control!
Is constantly on fair competition and equal opportunities from a talk. But what is the reality? How can a small business with 50 employees made against a company with 10,000 employees? Already in the tax area, the Group is superior to the medium-sized hands down. Because he can use international loopholes and afford a team of the best tax experts. Subsidies can measure a large enterprise with its specialist teams better. And what the local conditions concerns (transportation, favorable Commercial building, supporting research at universities, etc.) is the giants of course quite different gripped under the arms.
All these market-distorting privileges justify my opinion, a kind of monopoly control, the economic giant will be added to domestic and imported products (and services). Through this system, the location Germany remains unloaded and no one can prove bumble outsourcing of the matter.
Both the monopoly and the minimum corporate income tax are both to be important. One should not combine a tax them because they engage independently and because they are an indicator of how incorruptible politicians and governments to engage seriously in the cultivation of capital. The minimum income tax you need to take unprofitable companies out of the race (to preserve the natural regeneration process) or the parasitism dry (tax havens). Corporations should pay adequate income taxes - as is obvious in the medium-sized companies. This is a logical act of justice! And the monopoly control is simply there to the superior power of the corporations, which unfortunately inevitable result of capitalism compensate. Anyone who wants a fair market economy, will come hardly help thinking in this direction and to act. Otherwise the world will be in a few decades dominated by multinational corporations that degrade our governments to puppets.
Branch Compulsory for Large Companies!
The trend is clear: more and more companies close their office in Germany and supply and after its clients by a foreign headquarters. This is extremely customer-hostile! For example, if incorrectly delivered or defective goods must be returned abroad, the customer service do not speak the German language abroad or reluctant to respond to legitimate complaints (up penetrant stupid pose).
But not only the customers have significant drawbacks, the state also has a disadvantage. Because he is robbed of another piece of its control options. Because the investments made in Germany revenues can be captured more difficult of course, if the supply of a foreign center takes place and German customers must transfer the invoice amount in foreign accounts.
Therefore, the following proposal: Foreign companies in this country to achieve sales of more than three million euros will be required to have an establishment here. Customers therefore pay the due invoices then the German accounts of the local office. So many cheating and Steuertricksereien would be excluded. The monopole and minimum income tax could then be easily determined.
End Corporate barbarism!
How can it be that some global corporations can not be reached by telephone? You can search on their websites for hours and not find a single phone number, not even in the imprint. And if there still appears a number, you often get it with a machine to do (the one steals only the time and can often help). Some companies even hide their email address! They offer a lousy substitute only contact forms that allow only standardized questions and block out individual concerns. Often I have also experienced that while global corporations provide an email address, but did not respond to specific inquiries. You can dig deeper as often as you want - never gets you an answer. Why the legislature allows such a foreclosure? Why should corporations enjoy special rights? Could a medium-sized company allow it to alienate its customers this way?
Last, a customer has revoked an Internet order from me because he could call us, no one outside of business hours (he would have had a question about ordered items). Outraged, he reported that he had then ordered the product at a large corporation. But I know that this group is one of the Abschottern (no phone number, no way targeted inquiries by email). That's funny and shows how much consumers measure the double standards.
Why can our state communicatively foreclosure large corporations do not bring to reason why he can not require the disclosure of a friendly telephone connection in the imprint? Our country needs companies that make the customer a harmless request to impossible? And why there should be any foreign call centers, as subcontractors, far away from the company headquarters, possibly even abroad? Can not set its own telephone operators a big company? The abuses of corporations are spreading and lawmakers left watching as he tormented the SMEs with new orders. And then our politicians complain too hypocritical to monopolization trend.
In all these dubious in my eyes machinations to CEOs like to appeal to the international competition - one must save in order to keep up. But that does show once more in what absurd predicament bring us the "international division of labor" and the dependence on exports. Why do not you learn from why you still demonized fair conditions creating customs system?
Curbing the Menace Store!
Is it for the consumer benefit when a few commercial, catering, hotel or service chains divide up the market in Germany among themselves and degenerate owner-managed businesses to rarity or curiosity?
We complain rightly the monotony in our inner cities, which is associated with the standardization of the offer. But we rarely make us think about what this extinctions actually to free competition. Is it really that great when you get in every city the same hamburgers, pizzas are the same, the same food, clothes and shoes? How blackmail manufacturer if a large buyer threatens to take ranges from the program (if the supplier does not grant special discounts, advertising costs will be paid, shelf Rent paid)? Honestly, I think the development of the last four decades for a perversion - a modern, humane civil society unworthy.
Why was not long left unchecked and introduced a staggered Branch Tax? Something like this: From 30 branches an additional sales tax of three per cent, from 100 stores one of five percent, from 500 stores one of seven percent. Healthy major chain stores would cope with this additional levy - ailing companies give way to more powerful competitors and innovative retailers.
Decreases for consumers through a branch control the purchasing power and standard of living? Not at all! Because the additional revenue is not burned or misappropriated. The revenue would be usefully used to lower the high social security contributions (to finance the welfare state more taxes).
Restrict the Subcontracting!
How to successfully suppressed labor costs in the ever raging throat competition? It is not surprising if large companies are in ceaseless struggle for survival on the idea to outsource key components of their business in tariff unbound subcontractors, who in turn delegate important tasks to bogus self-employed. How perfect this system works, it can be best observed in parcel services.
Of course, the legislature could intervene and successfully fight this proliferation. The corporations concerned such a law would not even perhaps inconvenient. It could well be that they would rather pay decent wages (although the fierce competition to date does not allow). If all competitors must comply with applicable tariffs, no one would lose out. Should anything be more expensive through fair wages, buying patterns might change slightly. But this is, after all, the principle of a market economy - the unmanipulated price is to control demand. This achieves the highest possible efficiency and productivity - ie the highest possible welfare.
Dubious Takeovers more Difficult!
Again and again we read how speculators with mostly borrowed money to buy up large companies. The brazen about it: The high loans for the purchase price will simply saddled the acquired company! And this then often break down at some point under the weight of their debts. then make a rule to file for bankruptcy or bankruptcy protection to get rid of some of their debt with such tricks or to dismiss some of the employees with little compensation. Why are business acquisitions that can not lift even the investor ever approved? Is it in the interest of people to stimulate the monopolization and make a few speculators rich (at the expense of suppliers and employees, the empty-handed at a bankruptcy)? Why do we have an antitrust?
Revival of Price Fixing!
Until the 1970s a strict price maintenance was in Germany in many areas (which exist today only in books and magazines). The manufacturer determined the selling prices and all traders had to conform to it. Price wars, as we experience it today did not exist back then. Now has the lifting of price fixing brought something to the consumer, the goods were thus cheaper?
No, not really. Amazingly! Because of the release is a crazy (counterproductive) throat competition, the especially large chain stores have survived developed (most owner-managed livelihoods were destroyed). Even today, vast sums are put into advertising and into marketing (economically speaking largely burnt money).
Particularly severe impact on the quality of life of the consumers are. You are now in a permanent stress situation, have to waste a lot of time to study brochures and compare prices -. In order not to pay "too much" And the expert advice remains largely (on the track at the meager returns this hardly affordable).
More bad effects: the mom and pop corner shop does not exist anymore for a long time (the little chat with the merchant may not). Even very elderly pensioners are now largely reliant on a car when shopping (a heavy burden with respect to urban planning and environmental impact).
By the abolition of price fixing retail giant regional manufacturers can so put pressure on many of them not healthy returns (ie are delivered at the mercy of the big customers) more earned.
Further pressure is now built up over the Internet. For 40 years, I am the owner of a warehouse for photo accessories. My experience: There's probably not a photo article that does not 10 or 20 percent is sold off under the regular German dealer purchase price to the end user in the "price search engines".
How it works? "Resourceful" traders buy anywhere in the world gray imports and overstock, but getting there often counterfeiting or second choice articles foisted. Or they get rid of about phony exports (missing trader fraud) of the tiresome tax. Or they abuse their purchasing advantage as general importer (the it undertakes to set up a distribution network in their home country to apply the products to serve the dealers and to fulfill warranty claims) to poach breach of contract (contrary to the usual territorial protection) with private Ver-sandsshop in a neighboring country.
Already, high billions go to the German tax authorities lost annually by foreign shippers. If the state intervenes it may well be not that there are over 20 years in many areas barely reputable dealers in Germany and much of the goods on foreign shippers come into the country, past the German tax authorities. To compensate for the lack of VAT receipts then presumably the income tax would have raised or to dispense with the overdue, progression-related reduction.
would not Everything be more Expensive? Most
people know each other, in terms of economic issues, not
made. When we talk of tax increases (monopoly tax, VAT), the
global minimum wage, fair trade and other measures (ban on
factory farming, dairy price guarantee), they fear the same
a wave of price increases. Hold You only see the Onerous,
without thinking of the positive consequences. Regarding the
tax increases the energy saving factor (for example, the
reduction of social security contributions) still reasonably
obvious. It becomes more difficult to assess other
example, almost all subsidies cause a severe disruption of
the market's self-healing powers. This leads to the
misallocation and unprofitable investments, to create
monopolies, to the extortion of the states and workers,
while at the same dividends and share prices of the
beneficiaries to skyrocket. We now
know that the economic policy decisions were generally seen
counterproductive since the late 1970s (reduction of labor
income and pensions despite doubling of productivity).
Globalization, EU and euro so not brought what we were
promised solemnly by our elected representatives.
important to learn from the mistakes of the past, but not
talk up the wrong path taken by every means and to defend.
Promising reforms must get their chance to prove himself and
should not be demonized from wahltaktischem calculus. The
narrow-minded fear for their own sinecures dominated
political thinking worldwide. alienating the fear on their
advantage gave voters, party members or major donors,
paralyzes any reform. Our democracy is already in the grip
of lobbying and no one seems to be seriously prepared to
intervene against it.
Then would not Everything be more Expensive?
Most people know each other, in terms of economic issues, not made. When we talk of tax increases (monopoly tax, VAT), the global minimum wage, fair trade and other measures (ban on factory farming, dairy price guarantee), they fear the same a wave of price increases. Hold You only see the Onerous, without thinking of the positive consequences. Regarding the tax increases the energy saving factor (for example, the reduction of social security contributions) still reasonably obvious. It becomes more difficult to assess other measures.
For example, almost all subsidies cause a severe disruption of the market's self-healing powers. This leads to the misallocation and unprofitable investments, to create monopolies, to the extortion of the states and workers, while at the same dividends and share prices of the beneficiaries to skyrocket.
We now know that the economic policy decisions were generally seen counterproductive since the late 1970s (reduction of labor income and pensions despite doubling of productivity). Globalization, EU and euro so not brought what we were promised solemnly by our elected representatives.
It is important to learn from the mistakes of the past, but not talk up the wrong path taken by every means and to defend. Promising reforms must get their chance to prove himself and should not be demonized from wahltaktischem calculus. The narrow-minded fear for their own sinecures dominated political thinking worldwide. alienating the fear on their advantage gave voters, party members or major donors, paralyzes any reform. Our democracy is already in the grip of lobbying and no one seems to be seriously prepared to intervene against it.
Underdeveloped Countries Promote!
First of all Underdeveloped Countries Need Tariff Protection!
How to build its own production industry a poor state when the domestic market is flooded with dumping imports? That's almost an impossibility! In developing countries, the purchasing power is already low when then the little money is spent on imports is virtually nothing left for their own economy.
Domestic manufacturers can now produce even the same world-class in the deployment phase does not. In order to do business, they have to offer their goods cheaper than foreign competition. Therefore imports, with some exceptions (machines, etc.) should first be cleared up. Then the domestic economy can develop into a kind of protection zone alone. And the state has required the customs revenue to build up a reasonable infrastructure.
To give an example: the Europeans are accused of robbing African farmers with dumping prices (meat, poultry, etc.) existence. But where is the problem? Is a little too cheap, the State may import duties for compensation and justice shall (a great source of income). Cheap purchase prices at which the state can earn something (on tariffs), but are always better than would European suppliers from the outset charge high prices. While I am generally against the European subsidy policy, but in this case it really hurts Africa now not (only the Europeans).
It would be disastrous only, you would force developing countries to forego necessary protective tariffs. Then indeed dumping goods destructive forces would develop.
Not Think Big!
For decades, the development aid for Africa was too thinly. Almost every state was concerned, were funded individual projects and critical success controls were the exception. So seeped the most money in corruption or landed in foreign accounts of those in power. This kind of development aid I believe to be largely useless. Germany should focus its assistance to individual States and will give them something to show willingness to reform and also in terms of birth insight.
In these samples States would be useful, a pension system on the German model (generation contract) to establish, with Germany could carry the bulk of the burden in the initial phase. Since the cost of living in Africa are minimal, a monthly pension of 50 euros could already work wonders. They would pump additional purchasing power in the country and at the same time make the traditional pension by the children dispensable. This change has also once led in Europe to a break and sustainable stopped population growth.
Why the Limitless Sense of Entitlement also stir up?
So many Africans feel quite comfortable in their victimhood. "The West is to blame" & emdash; a better and more convenient excuse for their own laziness and discouragement There can hardly be a trigger for the widespread sense of entitlement are often accusatory reports in Western media (especially on television) you transmit always the same message.. : Even in ancient times Africa suffered from the slave trade, then came the colonization and today there are corporations and the global financial community who exploit the continent.
But this schuldzuweisende view that suggests Africans that they had a moral claim to live in a European welfare state, is decidedly one-sided. And it benefits no one, it awakens only unrealizable desires. Because the real handicap of the resource-rich continent are not the fates of the past (which had also Europe to survive in a different form), but the current political situation. In most African countries still rampant corruption and nepotism, lack the legal awareness of the rule of law (foreign investors security guarantees), in the fight against crime, to education, the labor zeal of religious tolerance, the principle of equality, on the equality etc ..
It would also be disingenuous to the "rich" developed countries to assume only evil. Because their governments give for generations huge amounts of development aid can often wide strike to debt relief, send despite the danger peacekeepers, doctors, engineers, construction and development workers.
Above all, however (which is most often overlooked): The enormous investment in science, research and the development of new products open up new perspectives Africa. Telephone and electricity networks as they can now, thanks to new technologies (smart phones, solar power, etc.) without extensive use lines (so they can skip several stages of development).
Actually, it would be a no brainer in today's possibilities, introduce the standard of living in the African countries to the European level. It would just be eliminated only the aforementioned basic evil (corruption, crime, lawlessness, etc.). But this can not be the task of the West, especially since many times the attempt has failed. Germany, for example, has put before the first World War a lot of power and money in building its colonies (the then current form of development aid). Even today this commitment is accused our state. One speaks even of genocide (although by the uprising of the Herero and hundreds of German soldiers perished) and demanded reparations.
Instead of always accusing just Western societies ( "you are to blame for the misery") should remind our aufwiegelnden reporters and television producers rather more to the self-healing powers. In the Bible it says, "God helps those who help themselves". With us but mostly appeals only to the Christian charity: "Humanity has no limits!" With this kind phrases we are held permanently in the duty (also in the refugee question) Our constant self-accusatory, and it goes-duty end appeals are also natural.. perceived in Africa and Asia. and so it is then no wonder that the people there derive the right to be included here.
Migrations not Solve the Problems!
We finally need legal access to the EU, as some top politicians send a reminder loudly? It's amazing what elected officials think they may expect their citizens.
Sure, our political elite sees the world from a different angle. If you have the five or ten times the income of a normal wage earner, that's no wonder. And naturally also when political stars with generous offers to the international community want to polish up their international image (in contrast to the "bad" Donald Trump).
But the voters turn out these chosen with their Spendierfreudigkeit usually a disservice. For it is ultimately Otto average earners, who must pay for everything. The one million refugees Germany has recorded only in 2015, causing an annual cost of an estimated 40 billion euros. so the high annual immigration has a significant impact on the net income of workers and is one of the reasons for the observed since 1980 losses in real wages of the working population.
Still, the true extent of the financial burden on the printing press can (the cheap flood of money the ECB) are laminated. But at some point is payday, the money supply must be reduced again and have interest rates be raised (the ECB will not last forever with freshly-generated money can soak up the government bonds of over-indebted member countries). What happens then? Although the flow of refugees has been contained in the meantime by foreclosure action, but still about 200,000 mostly uneducated refugees flock to Germany every year (in addition to the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who every year from neighboring EU countries come to us). So the resulting financial burden continues to rise, because relatively few refugees will eventually be able to earn their own living.
Simplification and legalization of asylum intake should be the number of refugees swell again. How far could you even try the patience of its own people? And how long will you still make the three billion living in poverty worldwide people false hope? Europe (and if you speak nebulous of Europe is meant primarily Germany) can not solve the problems of this world! convince the starvelings they had a moral right to be included in our (or they would have a real chance of finding a well paid job here), is more than negligence.
Germany is not an Immigration Country!
And it never can be when so many multicultural fans would like.
There are only three real immigration countries & emdash; namely the USA, Canada and Australia. What have in common these three countries? 1. It is vast tract countries. 2. The population density is still very low even after 200 years of immigration. 3. The indigenous people were displaced in these countries, decimated or largely eradicated (whose cultures are largely extinct). 4. There is a rigorous selection and the migrants are mostly no government support (ie have to fend for themselves). Germany does not meet any of the four criteria, making it suitable absolutely not an immigration country. This one should perhaps finally take note.
I have just heard in the news, but how strong Germany's social spending increase (2017 to over 900 billion euros). You try to make the pensioners and the demographic development responsible. The net pensions have been cut drastically over the past 20 years and the retirement age has been moved up. So the age structure can not be the real reason for the cost explosion really. Again, there is a lack back to the honesty and integrity.
Our unsuspecting do-gooders should finally realize that Germany may be either an immigration nor the social services in the world. In 1992 warned former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (who now certainly not a right-wing fool was) "to make Germany a least 1000 years history since Otto I not subsequently a melting pot."
Agriculture and Climate
The 21 thesis:
More Honesty in Climate Change!
For decades, the international community is struggling to international environmental agreements. About non-binding letters of intent, the participating States should guarantee to reduce their CO2 emissions in the coming decades.
But in all these machinations is heard hardly anything emdash about the fundamental problem &; the population explosion. Of course, weigh 7.5 billion people (who are currently living on Earth), our environment far more than 1.7 billion (which existed in 1900). Why is the single most important factor in the public debate on climate change held out?
The Western world is palmed despite all the efforts and investments in research always the main culprit in climate change. Here could easily three billion people (as many there were in 1950) live in prosperity without harming our planet sustainable. The unbridled procreation in developing countries does not seem to me less objectionable (and selfish) than the reckless extravagance of the "civilized" world. Statisticians expect in the next 25 years, a further doubling of the population in Africa. Can the go on forever?
The 22 Thesis:
Environmental Protection: Taxes Instead of Subsidies!
We need an energy revolution & emdash; that's for sure. But the expensive, reminiscent of the communist planned economy Sub-ventionspolitik I think is fundamentally wrong.
Would be better to tax fossil fuels stronger. If a liter of gasoline costs three euros, fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels would completely prevail by itself (without subsidies). The free market always pays the best results. He ensures that prevail most efficient and lowest emission energy systems and the environmental and cost-benefit awareness of the population is sharpened. Every consumer then ask yourself: Does not it also a more economical car, the purchase of a new energy-efficient refrigerator, the standby shutdown profitable, the move is worthwhile in a smaller (or closer to the workplace located) apartment?
In my circle I often register as a result of high government subsidies thousand euros will be invested in retrofitting thermal insulation of the house & emdash; perhaps to save 100 euros per year at the end of heating costs. It should be talked no, this is energetically sensible.
Last I looked at a 35 year old house for sale decency. In the basement is a well tended, brought to the latest technical standard oil heating system was (the owner was an engineer in the field). The legislature now requires that when a change of ownership, the oil heating system must be replaced & emdash; because she is over 30 years old. What nonsense, what a waste, what a environmental sacrilege! The energy expenditure for the new heating is probably higher than anything that could be saved by the 12,000-euro reinvestment of energy in the next 40 years. Why not let the market decide (on a higher, staggered by pollution emission control classes for fossil fuels). Then you could save yourself unnecessary, cost-driving regulations.
Regulatory support measures (subsidies) from the government almost always cause costly wrong turns and burn huge amounts of taxpayers' money. Regulating taxes on the other hand put the natural market forces in motion. Unfortunately Bezinsteuererhöhung is registered immediately angry, while the indirect subsidy rip-off is hardly noticeable. Here, the consumer is mistaken often in terms of the true cost. Because subsidies must ultimately be applied somehow (through tax dollars, of course) & emdash; albeit indirectly, so that the individual citizen, it hardly will notice.
Fossil energy taxes, however (which is a far more efficient steering function have) grant revenue that relieve the citizen to another location (for example, will reduce its social security contributions).
Technological progress (and not the state planning / subsidy Authority) should decide which drive and energy forms prevail worldwide. It may be as well that an LPG (which is supposed to be virtually pollution-free) driven cars has a better environmental impact than an equally sized electric car.
The 23 Thesis:
The Marine Diesel Desulphurisation!
It is unacceptable that the engines of ocean liners may still be operated with heavy oil unclean! Above all, the major port cities have to suffer. Actually, the UN would have to take remedial action, but that is unlikely to succeed because of their strong lobby interests.
But at least the EU would have to hammer out yet so little. You might agree that large container ships and cruise ships pay double docking fees if they use unrefined crude oil. And the EU should even that does not manage to Germany could start by itself with such an initiative. Our government would need to actually vote only with the Netherlands (direct competition). And that will be surely still should get.
Whoever complains again, the desulfurized marine diesel would still increase the cost of transport, which is really not helping. For, first, the additional costs are manageable and secondly, you have to take into account the savings (less environmental impact).
Guaranteed Prices for Agricultural Products!
The laws of our governments (especially the unlimited, largely duty-free trade) has forced in recent decades, most German farmers to give up or put out of business. Even today malocht much of the family farm for a pittance, far below the legal minimum wage for workers. The dilemma: Who needs to get perishable goods to the man sitting at the shorter lever. Especially if cheap foreign goods constantly flooded the market.
How callous politicians must be, if they accept this misery for half a century and make no effort to improve the situation for farmers. you really think you should not rely on obtaining their own agriculture, but one could always import the food cheap?
But what you would do in case of a global drought? If you believe, our foreign dumping provider would then be ready to make the scarce resource to the loyal clientele abroad? But then the supply of their own population would probably first of all in the foreground.
Why the state can not therefore establish a quota dependent guaranteed price. For example, 40 cents per liter of raw milk (in excess of the ratio's on the excess amount of only half the time). If too much goods from overseas press on the market, imports should be limited stop or sufficiently cleared. Simple Steue-assurance mechanisms, there would be well enough. You just have to want it.
Factory Farming Forbid!
Can the human species only survive by tortures animals? It is still out sooner without factory farming, why should it not be possible today?
In chickens, the free range has increasingly enforced, even on a voluntary basis. But why not go a step further and completely prohibit the cramped floor and caged? Why not always the number of animals confined in an operation to a manageable size? Then also animal diseases could not spread quickly, the risk of loss would be smaller and would have less prophylactic antibiotics.
Would the giant poultry, pork and beef farms trimmed in a natural farm size, meat prices likely to rise slightly. But what century are we living in? Is gluttony important to us than the welfare of the animals? Is it unreasonable, if necessary, restrict meat consumption a little?
Let Pups Alive!
Would it be reasonable for our population to refrain from the consumption of young animals? Our so infinitely human imaging parties seem to think this is absolutely impossible. But the respect for creation requires, in my view its toll. The pitiless slaughter of piglets, calves and lambs I consider a crime, a modern civilization unworthy. A government that would ban the trade of young flesh would have earned all our respect.
What is Social Justice?
Election Fighting politicians like to go with populist slogans and melodious promises for votes. But what does it really mean when they (once again) call for more social justice? In Germany, it is now many Hartz IV families financially better than corresponding full-time dual-earner working house-hold. refers to the situations of social justice? Support for children and families has been expanded over the decades in a breathtaking way while pensions have been slimmed down considerably. Is that meant when "social justice" is mentioned?
In my childhood a journeyman has as its sole earner family of six nourished & emdash; without any government support (child support, etc., there was not). Despite all the poverty and humility childhood was then, as I see it anyway, fortunately in most cases and more carefree than today. The aloof "subsistence", which is granted to children today by the Constitutional Court, unfortunately, all too often contributes help to guarantee labor unwilling parents and families with many refugee families to live in upscale wealth.
On the flimsy excuse to get the money from the rich, the political parties vied with each other over time in the invention of new social benefits. But because the rich can rip not insubordinate in a global world (the elites of our country rarely dependent), ordinary people for the generous redistribution orgies needs to end mostly still arise. Refers to the employer's contribution to social insurance with a (anything else would be self-deception), the average, payroll tax burden is about 50%. The pensioner meets the new form of "social justice", many net pensions are now below the basic allowance (which they also would be entitled if they had entered the country as elderly refugees or had never worked in life). Many retirees have alone today 9000 euros per year for the statutory health insurance shell & emdash; three decades ago that was still all contributions.
Behind the slogan of "social justice" so hides a highly questionable redistribution philosophy. The seller, the craftsman, the pensioner must bleed (especially if he's single or childless), while one does not dare the all-dominant monopolist and corporations appropriate ask to checkout (which may indeed unleash a campaign against unpopular politicians about their private "economic research Institute" or media or even threaten with the deletion of party donations).
Labor Costs Reform - the Refinancing of Social Systems ...
The problem: labor is artificially expensive less expensive (about payroll taxes and social security contributions), investments, however artificially (through government subsidies).
This nonsense promoted automations that are actually (under neutral point of view) unprofitable. The Intentional increase in the price of labor puts an additional burden in the international competition. The result is the manifestation of mass unemployment (to which one has become accustomed apparently) and the disengagement from productive growth (falling wages with rising productivity).
Logically consistent conclusion: The welfare state should be financed by the VAT and less social security contributions arbeitsverteuernde more. That's why I've been fighting for 30 years for a gradual refinancing, a wage reform. That is why, then one (distant) day, the health and long term care insurance be completely contributions. Every citizen would be insured through the state (in the health insurance of their choice). That would also useful synergies (reduce red tape, facilitate business start-decisions).
Rhetorically gifted tricksters have been able in the past to demonize VAT and present them as antisocial. This demagogic populism was certainly in the spirit of big business. But he reversed the facts. Especially the VAT is anything but anti-social! Because it just does not lead to inflation. Goods manufactured in Germany would cheaper (due to falling labor costs / social security contributions), only imports would become more expensive (because they would have to take on a fairer share in the financing of the welfare state). For whatever reason, imports should preferably (subsidized) be?
It is still unclear whether there is any sense to refund the VAT on exports principle (as it is common today). This practice encourages the known fraud, creates a false exports (carousels) and fatal dependence on exports. When it is said repeatedly that Germany could Han dels account surplus powerless high against his (supposedly), the German economy is just too strong, I can only smile. the trade and current account surplus through an adaptable in height Export of VAT, could control precisely.
Why is there no Wage Duty?
Where is the problem? What prevents to require compliance with applicable industry standard wages our politicians? Why must it be allowed to undermine agreed minimum standards? A company that wage rates can not generate, has in my opinion in a free market economy does not exist.
50 years ago, when we could really talk in Germany of a full employment (under an officially registered 250,000 unemployed (today there are officially 2.5 million) on tariff agreements between ten and twenty percent were nationwide usual. For the bare wage would hardly an employer useful people found.
Meanwhile the situation has reversed. Companies refuse membership to their employers' association and pay according to their "pay scale". And then lament the alleged shortage of skilled workers wailing. Because they get to their conditions not (their high demands sufficient) professionals more.
By "social justice" means not only in Germany that many retirees have to pay only 9,000 euros a year in the statutory health insurance today (25 years ago everything was still contributory). Social justice today also means that a worker with minimum wage would have to work 67 years (ie at least until his 82nd birthday), to even reach the level of basic security this means in plain language.. about half of all contributors has a lifetime in vain paid contributions you absolutely do not help them their! retirement benefits are possibly even below the basic security While you could go to the welfare office and an increase to the basic benefits apply & emdash; from shame but is often waived this Canossa My idea of social justice, however, is quite another: Every paid contribution should later affect the pension amount.
Quite possible that the basic allowance would have to first of all be lowered. But for whatever reason should a pensioner who has never paid anything into the pension fund, double the pension entitled to as a pensioner in neighboring Poland, which can look back on an uninterrupted working life? Is defined in Poland human dignity or the "subsistence" different?
The basic principle of our pension system would be by switching any case recognizable. The more a person has worked and paid up, the higher falls from his pension. That's obvious. This helps to regain faith in justice.
Incidentally, it should be noted that the gross inequities in the pension arose before all because of declining since 1980 earned income. Because we have so unilaterally prescribed the duty-free trade and continues to EU, euro and globalization celebrated as great achievements. If one were to break away from this disastrous heresies, the constant productive progress would make the pensions rise again and a reduction in the basic allowance would then no longer required. Most problems (not only in Germany) dissolve by itself, one would find their way back to the old virtues (for real market economy) and the Group-friendly economic policies (as recommended in the first two chapters of this book) give up.
Create Affordable Housing!
Private investors show little interest, prepare affordable housing for low-income households in the major cities. They prefer to build large luxury apartments, who can not even afford average earner.
If the private sector fails, stop the state must step in. He would have to build simple, small apartments in the larger cities who can afford retirees with basic security also. would rather have 25 square meters as a single and 40 square meters as a married couple in the neighborhood where you feel comfortable and have lived forever as a twice as large apartment in a strange, remote outskirts neighborhood where you feel like you deported and the you have no relationship.
What is true of retirees, of course, workers should be allowed. Our inner cities may not be the refuge of the upper class! It should reside primarily those there who work there. Today, tens of billions of euros per year must be invested in road construction in order to cope with the rush. A few decades ago, there were the problems in this stark form not (so it can be different). Also, because it was easier for workers to find a fair wage for work near her apartment.
To curb the costly trend and the commuters to mischief again, maybe should wage rates for employees in the city be raised legally binding (to compensate for the cost of there usual exorbitant rents). It's typical again: Many business owners are willing to spend the x times rent for a shop or office premises in 1a location, but the staff of this luxury addresses are hardly better paid than in a small town or in the countryside. For financial reasons, many of them are thus forced to take a long, costly and time-consuming commute into account. we would really have a shortage of skilled workers, proclaimed as at every opportunity, a functioning market economy would automatically force a "living allowance". The employees working in the city could then afford an acceptable apartment in companies close to or with good public transport connections. But for us to be market-based operating costs like passed on to the state. the then must constantly build, renovate and widen, thus being moved in the center prestige-seeking companies to skimp on wages of new roads.
However, exacerbating the problem arises that can not be suppressed at this point, due to the high immigration. Especially economic refugees love the big cities, because there on the one hand the view is better at a job. On the other hand, because there they meet many people from their distant homeland. In trendy neighborhoods foreigners already more than half of primary school students have an immigrant background! The high foreign population in large cities, it is then that undermines the natural-market balance of supply and demand. Because foreigners are (necessarily) often willing to work for less money & emdash; but they also accept higher rents (because these are more likely to make in respect of a large family).
The EU is not Europe!
Turning Away from Idolatry!
This refers not idolatry of the nations in ancient times, but the deification of the EU, the European Union. It is a mistake to believe, in conjunction everything better go! And the much-vaunted solidarity does not exist in reality!
What has the EU been brought positive? Mass unemployment has assumed alarming forms in all states, although in many places the true extent of the disaster is obscured. Not even the incomes of the population have increased in western EU countries in the last three decades (although productivity has doubled in that time). The continent smothered in its bureaucracy and legislation, and democratic conditions can be with so much inequality (the voice of Luxembourger has ten times more weight than that of a German) barely talk.
In the EU, envy and resentment towards the other spread. Again and again, people feel deprived. All things considered neutral, there are few arguments for the EU. Because the pitiful attempt to attribute the long period of peace in Europe, the EU is more than shameless. finally have all learned from the 2nd World War, and the existence of NATO and the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons did the rest.
In solidarity with the EU Germany must summon now thousands of soldiers in the crisis regions of the world. Even the current conflict in Ukraine would be without EU probably not flared up (because there had been no split in the Ukrainian society and no EU Beitrittsbestrebun-gen).
Basically, it would be naive to claim that an artificial community was a guarantee for peace. Just think once Yugoslavia, which disintegrated into its constituent according to bellicose Seperationsbestrebungen. The national consciousness of a population can be put not so simple, does not force the multicultural posturing.
Departure from the EU Subsidy Policy!
A subsidy policy is similar to the planned economy! No longer the market decides, but the politician and the bureaucrat. In the EU agriculture this mischief is particularly clear. Most German farmers already had to give up located for generations owned by the family courts because of the EU's agricultural policy. What European agriculture would really help, I have already stated in point 24, I do not need to repeat here.
Outside of agriculture, I do not believe the EU Subventionitis. Non-performing EU countries should, if it is absolutely necessary, rather come to the assistance with development aid. That would open and honest, would define donor and recipient countries clearly and counteract the lifted Forde approximately mentality.
How do the many (hard-earned) tax money for often nonsensical projects comes, is barely acknowledged by the recipient countries ( "This is us yet, all countries benefit from it."). The EU slimes in with multi-billion dollar "subsidies". but who ultimately pays the bill, is rarely questioned. That's probably the whole point: you placarded everywhere "funded by the EU" (which brings many sympathy points), but the origin of the money remains largely anonymous (no one feels really affected) Would the EU's biggest net contributor over. direct development aid perceived better Germany is likely to even have a chance at the annual sympathy competition ESC (Eurovision song contest) displaced from last place to be.
The EU Bureaucracy will Cost a Fortune!
It seems almost as if the EU had only been established to zuzumüllen the economy with regulations. Just imagine what this flood of legislation (over 80,000 pages) cause anything or cause to costs. National governments must pay for the Brussels dictates and are often overwhelmed with their implementation. Again and again national laws must be revised retrospectively or adapted.
The rule of law degenerates into a state appeal. Who has money or a strong lobby, can exhaust the national authorities only once, if I have to also turn on the Federal Constitutional Court and even call the European Court of Justice in an emergency yet. Thus, for many years in process clear laws Lever again, our Constitution falls at the mercy of party and lobby interests & emdash; morality and common sense often remain on the track.
Where these provisions flood leads shown by the example of the Berlin airport. The chaos of building codes and clauses can barely penetrate the best specialists themselves. The state (and the economy) are more and more incapacitated. I would therefore, to explain almost all EU orders for non-binding.
The Customs Union has Failed!
Why is the industrial base in the EU countries more and more lost? Sure, because you could no longer compete with foreign low-cost producers. Here, for example, could also Greece produced a good part of his own needs themselves, including shoes, textiles, household goods, washing machines, etc., even has its own car brand would be conceivable. But how to build a stable economy in Greece if the wages are much lower in neighboring countries? And how are the neighboring EU countries with low wages, get to his feet when the Customs Union no effective protective tariffs outwards permits (one is even with Bangladesh in wage competition)?
Abolition of the Schengen Agreement!
Germany benefited most from the open EU borders (Schengen)? No! If a benefit, then it is surely primarily foreign criminals who now enjoy a boundless freedom. The crime has increased significantly, con artists and burglars gangs spread fear and terror. More and more money must be spent on preventive measures (alarm systems, surveillance cameras, fences, etc.), but the detection rate is minimal in burglaries. Also million refugees benefit from open borders, because most of them would otherwise be unlikely to reach Germany.
Even economically, the open borders are not worthwhile. Even the border smuggling (customs and Umsatzsteuerbe-wearing) can be punished any more. Moreover, it is now even more lucrative to move factories to Eastern European countries with cheap labor or to employ Eastern European low-wage earners (contracts for work / bogus self-employed). For a little more convenience on border control to the citizen was aufgebrummt a mountain of disadvantages. And yet it is said: "Germany benefiting in particular ...".
The Euro must be Abolished!
Already in the basic principle lacks the Euro all logic and reason. Because a single currency can not respond to the special needs and the economic power of one country after all.
The inflation rate and the resulting interest rates evolve known in any economy differently. The nation-state must respond to these core values and the financial markets be prepared for that. But the euro is undermining these natural Marktmecha-mechanisms. It must form an average, the different inflation rates in the countries must reconcile. How should a common currency react to the divergent developments in the partner countries? If in a country's economy even run bad, there is usually a devaluation of the currency. This makes it easier to export and difficult (expensive) imports.
But the euro denied its Member States, these automatic corrections. Precisely because it no longer deals with the problems of a single country. Had as Greece nor his drachma, this fast the actual economic power would be adjusted. Thus the domestic base would also based in Greece, it would increasingly be produced in their own country.
The legitimate concerns of the German population before the introduction of the euro were wiped away with extraneous arguments. Citizens was fooled sent as great but all was: Comfortable Traveling in the euro zone, no annoying money Exchange and more, easier price comparisons abroad etc .. It was assumed that the euro lead to an unprecedented transparency and hence to a general price reductions would.
Was not mentioned that therefore the wages are under constant price comparison. And trade has become even more opaque. He is increasingly dubious, as foreign shippers undermined (to have to pay no value added tax to the German tax authorities) the market.
Ultimately, no way around it, dissolve controls the euro again. Only a sovereign state with its own currency has long term in the global competition dumping a chance of survival. the force or the insight is not enough for a controlled reversal, it will come one day to an explosive collapse of the euro, with disastrous consequences.
Does the World Need Crypto Currencies?
It is an absolute mystery to me why a serious state does not prohibit private crypto currencies principle. The creation of money monopoly should surely lie solely with the state central bank and not be left to speculators! The counterfeiting of banknotes is not severely punished for no reason & emdash; for any reason so you should allow electronically generated art currencies? They are hardly better than Counterfeit my feeling! Not only because the state is deceived, not least because of the users or buyers do not really know what he does, he can hardly understand the incredible simulation value of money ever.
Thus speculative bubbles that make a few rich form, but any time may trigger a new Great Depression. A real benefit of this charlatanism (the crypto currencies) for the People's Community, or the Germans do not open up to me. It will benefit more than some criminals thereof (for example in ransom payments), as well as the creator (inventor) a new crypto currency (it is now over 1000 different varieties enter) and a number of speculators.
Therefore: Prohibits this nonsense, every German and anyone who is on the territory of the Federal Republic, the Dealing or paying with Kryp-towährungen prohibited!
Lobbying must be Contained!
The task of lobbyists is clear. They should act on behalf of their clients on policy makers to influence the legislation. The players see themselves in their desires, of course, nothing wrong. They see themselves as noble Enlightenment, because the poor deputies are often overwhelmed with choices and do not have the necessary expertise.
But is there really a need for information? Our elected representatives are in the best interests of the state committed & emdash; they are not the lackeys of individual corporations, industrial, social or other interest groups. The influence of the highly doped lobbyists can not contribute to the neutral assessment of a situation in my opinion. For what may be for individual companies in their eternal struggle for higher returns and market share of importance, has little to do with the economic common good.
A simple example: The Association of florists struggling, who wants to blame him for the preservation of the reduced VAT rate of 7% (instead of 19%). But this privilege (the subsidy) is economically considered a clear violation of the principle of equal treatment. Why do tax incentives, the sale of flowers (favored) are? The special does not make sense because it is economically necessary not socially. If there actually a VAT increase in this industry to slight drop in sales (and therefore the feared job cuts) should come, you just have to live with it (which must all industries). Also: Who verkneift the money for the flowers, treat yourself for normally something else (which, as it secures jobs).
By contrast, the reduction of VAT in the hotel industry can be explained quite logical (from 19 to 7%). Because our hoteliers are in tough international competition. A lowering of VAT on foreign level promotes the attractiveness of Germany as a holiday destination. It therefore really about the preservation and creation of jobs.
But these are all considerations that can do a member of parliament alone without outside tutoring. He needs no teacher, prompters or think tanks. And if a politician actually do not know even a little partout, he can finally own research (eg the Internet). Or he may in special cases when it really does not get further once ask a short, written statement from affected firms or associations or visit the company on its own to obtain a detailed picture on site. The arguments he can confront the other side and ultimately make their own judgments on that basis.
Where lobbyists nest in which corruption is not far! For me, the matter is clear: Wherever lobbyists cavort and interfere, it stinks to manipulation and corruption. Lobbying I regard as cancer of modern democracy. I argue for a total ban of lobbying! A deputy does not have direct contact with paid lobbyists when it has its own alert mind (of which one has yet to go out).
Sufficient transparency? Some lobbying critics are simply calling for more transparency. All lobbyists should be registered and MPs should register their interlocutors. Certainly this kind rules would curb lobbying slightly. But I meet this transfiguring Alibi measures absolutely not! The grievances were not eliminated, but even a little legalized and made acceptable.
Voting by Secret Ballot in Parliament!
Can there be a real democracy at all? But anyway, it can! Implementation would be simple. It would have only the most votes in parliament held secret. That would be about it. If there were secret ballots, the power base of the party apparatus would be broken! Then the party leaders could no longer dictate their march directions in advance and stubborn coalition agreements would also no longer paralyze the policy. Only then all deputies would in fact be free and committed only to their conscience, as provided for by the Basic Law. Only then one could speak of a parliamentary democracy. Only then would the House of Representatives, the Bundestag, a reflection of public opinion.
If there had been secret ballots 20 years ago, there would seem to be neither the EU nor euro in its present form. And globalization (the duty free trade) could not neoliberal downward spiral enforce & emdash; there would be no mass unemployment and no falling real wages.
You mean they're all bold words that can hardly prove? Oh, no, it's not! Even in modern times, the laws of logic that can not simply be cut short with intensivster propaganda still apply.
In this context, I also advocate for it to extend to the Bun-destagsabgeordneten more time for their own opinion, so they do not become dependent of her party experts. It is not acceptable that our key decision makers wear themselves out in the interests of their constituency and are busy attracting investors through expensive subsidies and concessions (outpace competing cities or counties). State interests always take precedence over regional desires!
by Secret Ballot in Parliament would make the Country
This is the usual standard argument of Besitzstandswahrer! For the power brokers of power naturally want to preserve the status quo and not have to fear unpleasant voting results. Cleverly is feigned, safeguard the interests of voters must (should know if voted "their" deputies party compliant or desired, after all).
I think this concern for hypocrisy, for balderdash! If you have some fear of a wolf in sheep's clothing, a mole that creeps into a party and secretly takes the contrary suggestion? Derlei fears were ridiculous! It is surely but with the fear of the parties, who doubt the loyalty of their members. What if party decisions would not be binding? Could then implement even more citizen enemy positions (introduction of the euro, abolition of customs and borders) 1 to 1? at which representatives of the same party in the end it could even be controversial debates in Parliament, (imagine this monstrosity once figuratively) present different positions. That the powerful lobby of capital seeks to prevent free vote in Parliament, is quite understandable.
In conclusion: Of course, there are also cases in which secret ballots are not necessarily effective. I am thinking, for example, to the annual adoption of the federal budget. Should go reasonably smoothly and can not be blocked by secret obstructionist. But such exceptions do nothing to cause, and can be easily in the law anchor.
Addendum: The formation of a new government after the Bun-destagswahl in September 2017 would be gone in no time on the stage were secret ballots already common. For what would the coalition partners should then negotiate still large in advance? The parties would be partially removed from power, in the end decide the sovereign deputies. Could about a 20 under such circumstances - to negotiate a more generous family reunification or an immigration law party like the SPD -%?
We Need no World Government!
The old dream of a world government still fascinated. But how utopian is the idea? Especially & emdash; brings them ever breakthrough?
Of course it would be nice if there were world subject to the same wage rates, taxes, laws, social standards and rights. But unrealistic visions often serve only to divert attention from really feasible reforms. A well-known trick.
Besides, it is doubtful that a world government would be really so wealth-promoting as hoped. Because first is a global giant empire far more difficult to govern and control than a manageable area with uniform national and official language (one need only think of the problems in the EU).
And second is absent in a world government common, cross-country benchmarking. Today, governments could learn constantly from neighboring countries. What there is running very well what reforms they have performed and what proved to be a flop. This very useful comparison competition (which is unfortunately currently severely affected by the global dumping competition and the usual creative accounting and distorted) would virtually abolished by a world government.
And whether a global unitary state would kill war basically how amateurish frequently assumed, may be difficult doubted. Because civil war and warmongering, power-hungry despots have always been there and they will not simply disappear at a global denationalization. There would be even a risk that ruthless fanatics, Mafiosi or rebel leaders take over the world in itself, provoking an apocalypse.
How Neutral is the Media?
Journalists are only human. They, too, can make mistakes. Nobody demands the absolute infallibility of them. But when I say "the media" criticizing, it's not about forgivable lapses or oversights & emdash; it's about the accusation of deliberate manipulation of opinion is why that the population fundamental principles are deliberately gives wrong with the goal of massive influence on existential direction questions. to take.
Over the decades, has particularly taken place in Germany through brainwashing propaganda like a re-education, which has brought about a very questionable values change. The sovereign nation-state has fallen out of favor, he is despised by the establishment and especially leftist politicians, intellectuals and artists and mocked. Who does not connect the artificially kindled, anti-German and anti-national movement in our oh-so-liberal society who internalized not the political unification of Europe as a destination of all desires, the insulted, marginalized, attacked and vilified as a xenophobic racist or right-wing.
Thanks to decades of media constant stream it falls, for example, no one when leaders announce via television, "Our company is now once reliant on immigrants". The fatal fallacy is unfortunately accepted by a frightened population as a hard fact.
But even seriously: Why is precisely the densely populated Germany relies on immigrants? Are our streets and cities to empty, there are still too many undeveloped meadows and forests? Germany is smaller in area than Sweden, but has nine times the population. If the decision too little? Or anyone believes actually still at the old wives' tale from the shortage of skilled labor, which can be resolved only through a vigorous immigration?
In other fundamental issues is rarely something criticized by the media. Must return to the DM not even be considered in a liberal society? You have to accept the EU as a transfer union? take the cheap flood of money the ECB, the zero interest rate policy, the gigantic debt relief into account you have to? If the rules from Brussels flood unavoidable, must not be shaken in their anti-market subsidy policy? Is there, for intra-European and global wage and tax dumping is no alternative, protective customs barriers would be an anachronism, a throwback or even a perverse crime?
Democracy Thrives on Contradiction ...
The general view democracy thrives on contradiction. This looks a good part of German politicians, journalists and editors obviously quite different. Who dares to have a differing from drummed mainstream opinion must expect to be dubbed as right-wing populist, right-wing and anti-democratic monster "who has learned nothing from the past." If in a supposedly representative democracy is 30-40 percent of the population no longer feel represented in the Bundestag (because the established parties in crucial matters of principle all agree), this should give pause.
The media have the task to report objectively about the contradictions in this society and to be open to an alternative policy. They will claim this, as I see it anyway, inadequate justice.
High is the Risk? The
conditions laid down in this brochure theses are a basis for
discussion. I do not claim that without exception, all the
proposals pass the practical test (but most of
them). Basis of
the capitalist or market economy system is already the try
or the balancing of possibilities. Every new idea, every new
product and every new law must prove itself in the market
and in hard everyday. To that extent, of course, every
change and every plausible reform is associated with a
residual risk. But if you proceed carefully in case of
changes (as I always ask) when gradually introduced samples
at the optimum (ie, for example with a low-percent branch or
monopoly control starts), from a real risk hardly possible
to speak. The
remaining risk is ridiculous compared to the great
adventures that have received our governments in recent
decades. I held the abolition of our prestigious DM and the
introduction of multicultural euro 20 years ago for an
absurd gamble. Also the Schengen Agreement (the abolition of
borders within the EU), the EU's eastward enlargement,
Agenda 2010 I regard as highly risky ventures, the outcome
is uncertain. So if
political leaders shied away in the past, not recklessness,
then why this pusillanimity in controlled, logically
How High is the Risk?
The conditions laid down in this brochure theses are a basis for discussion. I do not claim that without exception, all the proposals pass the practical test (but most of them).
Basis of the capitalist or market economy system is already the try or the balancing of possibilities. Every new idea, every new product and every new law must prove itself in the market and in hard everyday. To that extent, of course, every change and every plausible reform is associated with a residual risk. But if you proceed carefully in case of changes (as I always ask) when gradually introduced samples at the optimum (ie, for example with a low-percent branch or monopoly control starts), from a real risk hardly possible to speak.
The remaining risk is ridiculous compared to the great adventures that have received our governments in recent decades. I held the abolition of our prestigious DM and the introduction of multicultural euro 20 years ago for an absurd gamble. Also the Schengen Agreement (the abolition of borders within the EU), the EU's eastward enlargement, Agenda 2010 I regard as highly risky ventures, the outcome is uncertain.
So if political leaders shied away in the past, not recklessness, then why this pusillanimity in controlled, logically reasoned corrective-measures?
"Germany Benefits ..."
No matter what happens: "Germany is benefiting" Germany benefits (believe it or not) by the EU, the euro, the ECB, the transfer union, the zero interest rate policy, Agenda 2010, the free trade, globalization, immigration, EU freedom of establishment, the Schengen agreement, the various free trade agreements, the exploitation of Africa & emdash;. there seems to be nothing, which does not benefit just Germany to support this brainwashing-like propaganda is often added even a "very special". So we are the big beneficiaries (or one should rather say parasites).
What is the purpose actually with this sham? It seems like trying to make questionable the Germans impositions tasty, sell them as successes stifle criticism in the bud. So no one is tempted to question policy decisions or to search for alternatives.
The fatal to the whole thing is that the propaganda spells (which are thought to pacify its own population) now broadcast around the world and be heard. And so it happens anywhere in the world to misconceptions, the entitlement to monetary claims. Economic refugees from around the world hoping to find a better home here (at least temporarily). EU countries with lower wage levels or even higher unemployment have the impression that they are not supported by the filthy rich neighbors Germany enough or believe the dominant Germany use the EU for its own purposes.
So then old resentments also live again and again, one recalls the two world wars to take Germany to the duty (debt cancellation, reparations, joint liability for banks and government bonds, easing of monetary policy, etc.). If our politicians and media more cautious with the "Germany-profits" deal -Parolen and less boast of dubious success, so does the demand mentality should change us.
statements in this brochure: With regard to the facts, I was
largely dependent on the data in the media and
encyclopedias. If you notice that in the matter a number or
an assertion is not correct, has somewhere crept an error or
I out of me in the sound, so you can use it like to share
with me under firstname.lastname@example.org by email. I absolutely do
not consider myself infallible, or the measure of all
things. Justified complaints I could then be considered in a
Among the statements in this brochure: With regard to the facts, I was largely dependent on the data in the media and encyclopedias. If you notice that in the matter a number or an assertion is not correct, has somewhere crept an error or I out of me in the sound, so you can use it like to share with me under email@example.com by email. I absolutely do not consider myself infallible, or the measure of all things. Justified complaints I could then be considered in a new edition.
booklet "Only Fair Trade" focuses on the fundamental evil of
the German, European and global negative developments. If
you delve deeper into this exciting field, want to cover the
requirements herein theses detailed and substantiated, I
(unfortunately only in the original German edition
available) recommend my "CAPITAL" trilogy. There you will
find a lot of background knowledge, further aspects and
analyzes and additional solutions and proposals for
in 3 Volumes Volume I
(the main work) Volume
III Can be
obtained via Internet bookstores (there usually stock) or
the stationary bookstores.
polemic against fatal prejudices and political ignorance. Without further ado be unmasked the most serious mistake and mistakes and did not hesitate to take up even taboo subjects without reservation.
For if the policy is really wanted is the worst state problems could be solved quickly. the demise of Germany and the Western world is not inevitable - he is homemade (the result of a misguided, illogical lobbying).
Unfortunately currently only available in German
"CAPITAL and globalization",
172 pages, size 17x22 cm, 13.50 Euro
What has brought us the wisdom of many Nobel laureate economist and of the leading economists in recent decades? The corporations were more powerful millions shareholders were fabulously wealthy - but the average citizen in the high-income countries today are worse 40 years ago (although the productivity doubled and has increased the performance of compression strong).
Why is that What went wrong the classic "Das Kapital and? globalization "provides convincing answers. Relentlessly open, understandable for everyone.
"THE CAPITAL and the world economic crises"
68 pages, size 17x22 cm, 5.90 EUR
"THE CAPITAL and the welfare state"
redistribution to perversion? When collapsed the social system? 104 pages, size 17x22 cm, 7.90 EUR
The booklet "Only Fair Trade" focuses on the fundamental evil of the German, European and global negative developments. If you delve deeper into this exciting field, want to cover the requirements herein theses detailed and substantiated, I (unfortunately only in the original German edition available) recommend my "CAPITAL" trilogy. There you will find a lot of background knowledge, further aspects and analyzes and additional solutions and proposals for reform.
in 3 Volumes
(the main work)
Can be obtained via Internet bookstores (there usually stock) or the stationary bookstores.
books by Manfred Julius Müller (unfortunately currently only
available in German):
CAPITAL AND GLOBALIZATION - only Euro 13.50
THE CAPITAL and the world economic crises - only Euro 5.80
THE CAPITAL and the welfare state - only Euro 7.90
OUT OF THE EU or persevere until the sinking? - only Euro 5,90
The free trade delusion - only Euro 6.50
Humanity knows no boundaries. Stupidity, but not too! - only Euro 6.80
Only Fairtrade! The capitalist Reformation! 42 theses for a fairer world! - only 5,- Euro
Manfred Julius Müller has analyzed global economic processes for more than 30 years. He is the author of various books on the topics of globalization, capitalism and politics. Some texts by Manfred Julius Müller also found their way into textbooks or are used for teacher training.
analyzes and texts by Manfred Julius Müller are non-partisan and
They are not, as is often the case, sponsored by state institutions, global players, corporations, associations, political parties, trade unions, the EU or capital lobby!