Walter Eucken, the head of ordoliberalism, once wrote: “Collectives are without a conscience.
Correct: You always have a good conscience.” The participants in the new concerted campaign, with the help of which Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz wants to turn against the current economic and social threats, undoubtedly have a good conscience.
It is true that the SPD in particular, but also the Greens, are worried about social unrest in the event that the gentleman in the Kremlin should flare his gas off in Siberia in future instead of sending it through the pipeline to Europe.
Even if there weren't any serious supply bottlenecks, it would be almost impossible to prevent further significant price increases.
It was no coincidence that the Chancellor spoke of a "historic challenge" with the message: "We stand together."
The suggestion to mobilize the old German corporatism against the challenges of the new world seems to have fallen out of time.
However, it can be seen as an attempt by the government to delegate part of the political responsibility that is difficult to bear in these times.
The concerted action may also serve the purpose of gaining some time, because decisions should not be taken now.
In any case, one should not expect much from the meetings.
wage-price spiral
Comparisons to half a century ago are helpful.
If the bitter experiences of that time with dependence on Arab oil had not been forgotten, we would not have become dependent on Russian gas in our time, the bitter consequences of which are now being felt.
From that time, however, it can also be seen how the idea of concerted action collapses at the latest when inflation rears its ugly head.
The first concerted action is associated with the name of the then Social Democratic Minister of Economics, Karl Schiller.
However, it was the creation of the economist Herbert Giersch - which may surprise all those who associate Giersch with the very liberal and market-based supply economist from his time as President of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
However, Giersch had a life before Kiel.
And in this first life as an economist, he saw himself, as he said himself, as an "actionist" in questions of short-term economic management in the spirit of the British economist John Maynard Keynes.
Giersch learned from it
The first concerted action, like the founding of the Council of Economic Experts (to which Giersch belonged for several years), was not least an attempt to convey to the trade unions the macroeconomic connections between economic growth and inflation.
That went wrong.
In practice, the unions pursued an aggressive wage policy at a time of weak growth and rising inflation rates, prompting the well-known economist Gottfried Bombach to make the head-shaking comment: "Once the unions understood economic growth, it was over."
An attempt today to prevent a wage-price spiral at the round table could not work any better.
The most important reason is not even that the current economic cues of the trade unions seem hardly smarter than their predecessors 50 years ago.
On the contrary, it soon became clear how much dreams of corporatist economic policy in pluralistic societies failed due to information problems and different preferences and how the influence of organized interests on state action often did not serve the general public.
At least Giersch learned from this: He recognized the need to improve the economic framework through a hands-on supply policy.
Decades ago, economic policy theory came to the conclusion, with good reason, that institutions should be clearly assigned economic policy competencies.
Responsibility for monetary stability has been assigned to independent central banks by governments, to keep them separate from the vested interests of corporatism.
In return, the chosen policy is responsible for the security of the energy supply – even if this requires conflicts with companies that are willing to become dependent on energy policy.
Round tables are good for a clear conscience.
But they are not events for good results on economic issues.