In the spring, the question of an energy embargo against Russia was also controversial among economists.
At the time, the federal government did not attach importance to justifying its rejection with reference to scientists.
It would have been possible anyway.
Today it would be difficult for the federal government to provide a scientific justification for the reduction in VAT on gas in combination with a levy on gas.
The assessment of this policy by experts is almost unanimously negative.
Even the usually most loyal SPD economists find it difficult to applaud this – as a distraction there are attempts to shift the responsibility for the tax cut publicly announced by a Social Democratic Chancellor onto the Free Democrats.
Politicians like to accuse economists of having unworldly theories and model calculations.
In the real world, politics must take care of people's concerns.
Otherwise, there is a threat, if not of popular uprisings, at least of social unrest, as seen a few years ago in France in the form of the “yellow vests”.
How confident do you want to appear in Berlin?
How sovereign does a government want to appear that, out of fear of the population, refuses to pursue objectively necessary policies?
What picture does the government paint of the governed in this way?
Polls have shown for some time that a sizeable majority of the population undauntedly supports a pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian war strategy and accepts temporary economic disadvantages in return - because this majority of the population should at least have a hunch that an ignominious collapse is ahead imperialist Russia could entail costs of an entirely different magnitude.
Economists must not presume to want to engage in politics.
But politicians should listen to experts, especially in difficult times, in order to develop the best possible policy and then try to take people with them on the path chosen by politicians.