Such a cultured show!

One let the other finish, no one called in or shouted around.

What was it?

Edo Reents

Editor in the Feuilleton.

  • Follow I follow

Uncharmingly, you have to hold on to the fact that Anne Will didn't speak up that often.

Every now and then one of her notoriously snippy inquiries would come along - that's basically it.

And then the topic will have had a disciplining effect: gas and its price.

When it comes to money, things get terribly serious in Germany - although, or rather because, so much of it is in the hands of a few here and these few would like to keep it, which is unfair for those who have significantly less of it or nothing at all Find.

"Nobody should have to freeze or starve in winter - can the government keep this promise?" The questioning title of the Sunday evening program on the first was misleading in that "the government", no matter what color, has never prevented it or wanted to prevent anyone from freezing or starving in winter.

The non-decreasing number of homeless people alone proves it.

A quartet game on social policy

This winter, however, could be chilly for a vastly larger number of citizens, almost regardless of whether the gas surcharge comes or not.

Anne Will immediately confronted the Federal Minister of Finance: what was the point of having the “Bild am Sonntag” announce it almost overnight and not first informing the cabinet that this levy did not need to be made because of him, but instead rather something like an energy price cap.

In any case, Christian Lindner was able to defuse the bomb by pointing out that the others (colleagues) had already said their opinion about it, so he was allowed to do that too.

It was a parity cast, seriously running quartet game on social policy.

In addition to Lindner, Clemens Fuest, President of the Munich Ifo Institute for Economic Research, made every effort to appear credible when he repeatedly asserted that when dealing with the energy crisis, which could by no means be reduced to gas, one should not forget the lower third of the income – but you don't forget the top third either, say what you want.

The reporter and filmmaker Julia Friedrichs and the North Rhine-Westphalian Labor Minister Karl-Josef Laumann already had the part “social justice” in their repertoire and then played it very well.

While Friedrichs first illustrated the seriousness of the situation with the help of depressing individual fates, only to then go on to the question of distribution, or rather redistribution – “Now is the moment when you give something back to the country that made prosperity possible” – Laumann remained adamant with its classic socio-political line.

It's about helping those in need, but really helping them.

"People," he said in a refreshingly simple way, "who are doing well have to see for themselves how they can deal with the situation."

Energy price flat rate instead of gas surcharge?

As a possible, yes, now also probable instrument, something like an energy flat rate emerged on the economically liberal side, particularly propagated by Fuest.

Unlike the surcharge for gas, this not only does not make it more expensive, but also includes other energy sources and also sets the incentives that liberals like to try – not to consume energy happily, but to save it.

The latter is only reasonable.

What was said before, which resulted in a treacherous silence on the simple question of why the large amount of capital in the country, which is still being increased by regulatory small-scale and tax dodges, remains largely untouched, was less convincing.

Or it was only convincing insofar as it once again became clear how difficult it is to reconcile purely economic expertise and permanently effective social policy.

Here Lindner/Fuest Friedrichs/Laumann lost: The latter demonstrated with simple rhetoric that in the end it is also a question of determination.

You can say “location” and “competition” as often as you like – but, as the two social advocates calculated,

it is obvious that the prosperity that has undoubtedly been generated and is still increasing in certain sections of the population since 1990 has by no means reached everyone.

But at that time, 80 percent of the employees still had collective agreements.

Yes, you just can't believe it, "flexibility" still means a lot in this country.

Why actually?

It's always the same: if the country or at least "the economy" is doing well, you shouldn't jeopardize prosperity by giving social "gifts".

If there is a crisis and money is scarce, then that is absolutely out of the question. But there is actually always a "crisis", at least that's how it has seemed for twenty years.

This is the mode of our time.

And no remedy in sight.

Because, at least that became crystal clear, ecology is now actually and for the time being a thing of the past: None of those present contradicted the demand to now rely on coal and nuclear again until the worst was over.