Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2007
Don Quichote? Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
06:52
Kommentare (0) Trackbacks (0) Don Quichote?
Jemandes Parteibuch weist darauf hin, dass, nun, sagen wir mal, nicht alle Informationen in den Massenmedien unseres Landes journalistischen Standards entsprechen.
Das Problem, das sich dabei auftut: Die Leute, denen man das sagt (so wie ich Jürgen Hubert hier neulich, oder wie Albrecht Müller in seinen Büchern, oder eben jemandes Parteibuch), die wissen es entweder schon - oder glauben es nicht, egal wie viele Beweise man auf den Tisch legt. Im Grund kann es einem ja auch egal sein, nicht wahr? Schließlich ist es ja ihr Pech, wenn sie aufgrund falscher Informationen falsche Entscheidungen treffen. Leider nicht. Denn sie treffen auf dieser Basis Wahlentscheidungen. Und die beeinflussen auch jene, die nicht zu denkfaul sind, ihre Augen aufzumachen. Aber das ändert nichts am Problem: Sie nehmen es nicht wahr. Es gleicht einem Kampf gegen Windmühlen, ihnen das nahe zu bringen. Wenn jemand sogar gegen seine Interessen wählt, weil man ihm eingeredet hat, das sei besser für ihn, dann wird man ihn schwerlich vom Gegenteil überzeugen können. Das kann er nur selbst. Ich fürchte allerdings, dass es zu lange dauern wird, bis das genügend Mitbürger fertig gebracht haben. Bis dahin haben wir wahrscheinlich schon die Bundeswehr nach Venezuela geschickt, oder die letzten Reste Was also tun? "Nichts" geht nicht, und Überzeugungsarbeit scheint aussichtslos. Ich weiss es nicht. Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007Rappende Drucker
Su-Shee schreibt , wie cool sie 3D-Drucker findet. (Und enthüllt nebenbei, was sie ihrem ersten Sohn antun will, sollte sie einen kriegen: Sie will ihn nach MacGyver benennen...)
Ja, 3D-Drucker sind cool. Richtig cool werden sie aber erst, wenn sie selbstreplizierend werden, und das dauert wohl noch ein oder zwei Jahre. Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007Autofahrerleiden
Heute war die A7 nach einem Unfall gesperrt. Ind er Folge musste ich für die Heimfahrt die Landstraße nehmen, die allerdings, durch mehrere Baustellen bedingt, hoffnungslos überfordert war. Ich habe dadurch von Tür zu Tür nicht wie üblich 40 Minuten, sondern zwei Stunden benötigt - von denen ich einen signifikanten Anteil stehend verbrachte.
Oder besser gesagt, sitzend. Anders als zu Zeiten, in denen ich noch Bahn fuhr, hatte ich einen gepolsterten, windgeschützten und bei Bedarf heizbaren Sitzplatz. Insofern, kein Grund zur Aufregung. ![]() Montag, 28. Mai 2007
Falkenmond und Elric Geschrieben von Ingo
in Rollenspielereien um
21:18
Kommentar (1) Trackbacks (0) Falkenmond und Elric
Genau! Mongoose Publishing hat die Lizenz von Chaosium übernommen, um Moorcocksche Rollenspiele zu machen, namentlich eben Elric von Melniboné und Dorian Falkenmond (ja, ich weiss, "Hawkmoon" bedeutet eigentlich "Habichtmond", aber die offiziellen Übersetzungen der Saga ins Deutsche benutzen eben "Falkenmond").
Insbesondere das Falkenmond-Rollenspiel reizt mich ja schon stark genug, um es zu kaufen... Das Regelwerk soll allerdings auf Mongooses "MRQ"-Version des alten Runequest basieren. MRQ? Ja, kannte ich auch noch nicht (war doch sehr auf GURPS eingeschossen in letzter Zeit). Tatsächlich handelt es sich dabei offenbar um eine modernisierte Version von RuneQuest, die zudem unter eine Open Content License gestellt wurde. Mit anderen Worten: Das darf jeder benutzen. Ist natürlich nur auf Englisch. Oder fast nur. Sonntag, 27. Mai 2007
Aufschwung? Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
10:24
Kommentare (0) Trackbacks (0) Aufschwung?
Generell bin ich auch eher ein Optimist, und ich wünsche mir weniges so sehnlich, wie ein nachhaltiges Anziehen der Konjunktur in Deutschland. Leider kann ich aber nach wie vor die allgemeine Jubelpropaganda nicht teilen.
Im Herdentrieb steht, dass alles besser werden wird und der Konsum den Aufschwung sichere. Unterlegt wird dies mit allerlei Grafiken. Leider sagen die aber nicht aus, was der Text aussagt. Da wäre zunächst mal der Ifo-Geschäftsklimaindex. Der zieht mal wieder an. Das ist ja schön, war aber, wie ja auch in dem Schaubild zu sehen ist, schon des öfteren der Fall, ![]() ohne dass das eine wirkliche Änderung der Verhältnisse angezeigt hätte. Ja, die Lagebeurteilung ist auf einem sehr (ja, sehr, sehr) hohen Stand, aber das ist für sich genommen erstmal nichts wert. Zumal man sich beim Ifo-Institut ja gelegentlich schon fragt, wie deren Daten so zustande kommen. Wie dem auch sei, die Schlagzeile "Der Konsum sichert den Aufschung" jedenfalls ist durch keine harten Daten begründet: ![]() Was sehen wir hier? Dass der Konsum sich in einer für einen richtigen, auch konsumgestützten Aufschwung typischen Weise entwickelt? Aeh, nein. Wir sehen das seit über einem halben Jahrzehnt übliche Herumkrebsen. Aber privater Konsum ist ja nicht die einzige Quelle des Wirtschaftswachstums: ![]() Aber auch hier tut sich nichts außergewöhnliches, sondern wir beobachten hier nur einen ganz normalen Konjunkturzyklus, und noch nicht mal einen besonders starken. Woher kommt dann der Aufschwung? ![]() Moment. Fängt da womöglich jemand in Berlin an, intelligente Wirtschaftspolitik zu machen? Tja, sieht fast so aus, zumindest, was die staalichen Ausgaben angeht. Das ist zwar schön und gut so! Aber es nährt einen Verdacht: Dass nämlich, um den Reformkurs zu stützen, jetzt das getan wird, was man jahrelang nicht tat, damit die Reformen begründet werden konnten. Nachdem diese nun (natürlich) nicht gewirkt haben, muss man sich schnell etwas einfallen lassen, um zu zeigen, dass sie doch unbedingt nötig waren. Also macht man prozyklische staatliche Ausgabenpolitik in der Hoffnung, damit den "Beweis" zu erbringen, dass es die Reformen seien, die all dies bewirkt hätten. Seufz. Freitag, 25. Mai 2007Browsercache löschen!
Memo to self: Wenn man nach einem Update ein Problem mit dem Webserver hat und anschließend Maßnahmen ergreift, es zu lösen, ist es hilfreich, zum Testen der Lösung den Cache des Browsers zu löschen.
Jaja, es ist schon spät, und es war ein langer Tag... ![]() Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2007Aeh...
Heute schreibt die Tagesschau:
Das finde ich als Geek ja durchaus cool, dass die sowas schreiben. Aber ich vermisse dennoch den Eintrag von gestern. So von wegen Verfassunstag. Ist Star Wars wichtiger als das Grundgesetz? Aber was frage ich... Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2007
Was für ein Vorschlag Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
07:02
Kommentare (0) Trackbacks (0) Was für ein Vorschlag
Alles nur im Dienste des Menschen!
Herr Oberender. Ich kann Ihr Engagement für die Freiheit, der Armut durch extrem gesundheitsschädliche Einmalmaßnahmen ein Schnippchen zu schlagen, ja nur begrüßen. Natürlich sind Sie dann auch konsequenterweise dafür, sicherzustellen, dass niemand in eine Notlage gerät, in der er einen solchen Verklauf dann auchdurchführen muss. Nicht wahr. Ich meine, nicht dass dann der potentielle ALG2-Empfänger demnächst von der Agentur für Arbeitslosenentwürdigung gesagt bekommt: "Sie wollen Geld? Spinnen Sie? Sie haben ja noch beide Nieren, benutzen Sie erstmal Ihr vorhandenes Kapital!" Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2007
Verfassungstag Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
19:22
Kommentar (1) Trackbacks (0) Verfassungstag
Ja, heute ist der Jahrestag, an dem das Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verkündet wurde. (Danke, Kris.)
Eigentlich ist es doch ein schöner Brauch, dass sich die Leute an diesem Tag die Artikel 1 bis 20 unserer Verfassung mal wieder durchlesen und sich ganz ernsthaft fragen, wie es um die Umsetzung dieser bindenden Vorschriften in unserem Land steht.
Hm. Na gut, das gilt schon im Allgemeinen. Wenn man nicht gerade das Pech hat, vom Staat Geld zum Überleben zu benötigen.
Dieses Recht würde ich auch gern Herrn Schäuble ausdrücklich zugestehen, insbesondere betreffend Absatz 1, zweiter Halbsatz.
Ob wir wirklich alle vor dem Gesetz gleich sind...? So scheinen ja "anständige Menschen" neuerdings mit weiteren Grundrechten ausgestattet zu sein, andere hingegen nicht so...
Wobei die Freiheit der Religionsausübung allerdings stark erleichtert wird, wenn man den Markt anbetet. ![]() Artikel 5 Das klappt noch. Artikel 6 Auch da habe ich, ganz ehrlich, nicht soo viele Bauchschmerzen, auch wenn man über die Einzelheiten der Ausgestaltung trefflich streiten kann. Artikel 7 Den hatte ich irgendwie kürzer in Erinnerung. Aber auch hier: Scheint noch zu gelten.
Aeh, nun... also, Heiligendamm, ne. (Und nein, wir wollen jetzt nicht bis ins Gesetz gehen. Heute ist Verfassungs-Tag, nicht GesetzzurEinschränkungbeliebigvielerGrundrechte-Tag.)
Natürlich hilft es, wenn die fraglichen Vereinigungen nicht globalisierungskritisch sind. Wenn man nicht schikaniert werden will. Artikel 10 Hm. War der nicht auch mal viel kürzer? Artikel 11 Ich muss plötzlich schon wieder an Heiligedamm denken. Obwohl. Vielleicht ist der G8-Gipfel ja ein "besonders schwerer Unglücksfall"...?
Hm. Ist "Drohung mit dem Entzug von Sozialtransfers" eigentlich "Zwingen"? Könnte man ja schon so sehen... So, und jetzt tieef Luft holen:
Und... ausatmen... und wieder ein-at-men...
Der war doch auch mal viel, viel, viel kürzer? Man könnte fast meinen, Absätze in Grundgesetzartikeln würden mit den Jahren Junge kriegen... schon komisch. Artikel 14 Der dagegen ist noch genauso lang wie 1949. Puh, dann ist das Wichtigste Grundrecht ja gerettet. Würde die FDP sagen. Artikel 15 Der kommt mir so vor, als sei er noch nie angewandt worden... oder zumindest ist das schon eine Weile her...
Hallo, Herr El Masri. Ja, das finde ich auch.
Schon wieder so ein Karnickelphänomen.
Natürlich hat keiner zwingend das Recht, dass man ihm auch zuhört...
Der stand 1949 so übrigens auch noch nicht drin. Artikel 18 Hier hätte ich aber auch mal einen dringenden Vorschlag zur Ergänzung... sollte da nicht auch "Wer das passive Wahlrecht..." stehen?
Ein Grundrecht darf nicht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden, Herr Schäuble. Immer schön dran denken. Artikel 20 Den Absatz 4 habe ich in der Vergangenheit ja schonmal dokumentiert. Aber den Absatz 3, den möge sich doch bitte das ganze politische Berlin hinter die Ohren schreiben. Danke. Dienstag, 22. Mai 2007
Es geht schon los? Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
19:32
Kommentare (0) Trackbacks (0) Es geht schon los?
Vor einiger Zeit schrieb ich:
Und heute dürfen wir beobachten, dass es offenbar in Hamburg eine Gruppe von Leuten (?) gibt, die allerlei Feuer anzünden, zum Beispiel auch mit dem Auto von Kai Diekmanns Frau als Brennstoff. Scheinbar gab es da auch schon vorher den einen oder anderen Vorfall. Man kann sich mit Recht fragen, wieso die Frau von Herrn Diekmann Schuld an den Zuständen ist, die sich in unserem Land breit machen. Ebenso kann man sich natürlich fragen, woher diese Radikalisierung nur kommen mag. Sonntag, 20. Mai 2007
Still trying to provoke thoughts. Geschrieben von Ingo
in Politik und Weltgeschehen um
07:10
Kommentare (2) Trackback (1) Still trying to provoke thoughts.
Replying to Jürgen's Answer on LJ
[...] >>> This means that the working population shrinks by 1.32% every year. This >>> more than compensates for the growth of C! > >> As you can see by acknowledging that the 2.4% GDP growth is real, not >> nominal, GDP growth, this is not correct. > >> Still, I agree that 2.4% are still way too low a GDP growth for a healthy >> economy. But that's what I said all the time. ![]() > >However, this is significantly higher than what we have had in recent years. Yes, it is. No, that is not unusual over the course of an economic cycle. And it is certainly no sign for a success story of the reforms. [...] >> The relevant question, though, is: Will population shrinkage be compensated >> by higher productivity? >> >> Of course it will. If one member of the workforce has to supply 100% more >> people than today, this only means that his productivity must increase by at >> least 100% over the same time. You are a physicist, you can easily compute >> how little the annual productivity increase has to be to achieve this over the >> course of a few decades. > > I already did that – the 1.32% I mentioned in my calculation for the more optimistic calculation (which > assumes more immigration), and 1.83% for the more pessimistic calculation. If that level can be achieved, > it is possible to stagnate effective income for everyone – the working and the non-working population alike. Average annual productivity growth per working hour over the last 30 years: 2.8% So, what is the problem? > And in the meantime, Germany is competing on a global level with lots of nations with younger populations >– where the productivity gains don't merely stabilize the retirement systems, but also are able to give >significant wage increases to the working population. The result is clear: Those who can – primarily those >with the best education – will move to countries where they have to support fewer non-workers. You are doing it again. You are, again, just repeating the what certain preachers have told you. See, the fact that the Chinese and Indian populations finally achieve a certain level of wealth is no threat to anyone per se, and especially not to the wealth of the most globalized economy on Earth. They are producing more goods, but that's fine, because it increases the wealth of the world. Unless you believe that the total amount of work to be done is a fixed number, there is absolutely no reason why the increase of production from, say, China, should somehow decrease our wealth. In fact, the opposite is true. More goods means more wealth. Not less. "Germany is competing". That is just economic nonsense - and the lobbyists who invented that stupid claim did not even see what it implies: That globalization is a bad thing and should not be done. If they were right, the smartest thing we could do is end globalization. But that's the last thing they want to do, because they actually know that their wealth increases by the process of globalization. All they try to do is make us believe that we are threatened somehow, so that they themselves get a larger share of the cake we call GDP. That's nothing new - they try this since the FRG exists, they did exactly the same thing in the Weimar Republic (google for some RDI statements. You'll be surprised how familiar they sound. >>> Encouraging new births: It's doubtful that this post-industrial society >>> will achieve population growths that compensate for its deaths, > >> Well, there are societies that do this. On the long term, technological solutions >> might also come to mind. > > True. But I suspect that once such technologies have developed, technologies that also allow people to > work for much longer times will have been developed as well. Indeed. But the point is: It is a problem of a very unlikely future that you propagate there. Either the problem of very healthy and work-worthy elderly will not exist, or it solves itself. So, what is the point of discussing it? [...] >>> Increasing retirement age: Ultimately, there's no way around this IMO. >> >> Well, as soon as transhumanist technologies become available, I agree with >> you. Until then, it is a mere fact that while people get older, they are still too >> old to work at age 65 most of the time. I agree that individually, someone who >> is still capable of working at age 65+ to support himself should do so, but 1.) >> this is still a minority, 2.) in Germany, even the 45-year-old have a hard time to >> find a new job (because they are seen as too old), so it's nonsense to assume >> that the 65+-year-old would find jobs, >That's mostly based on prejudice It is rather irrelevant on what is is based. It is still a fact. >> and 3.) there is no reliable way to distinguish those who can work from those >> who can't. >The concept of “Berufsunfähigkeit“ - the inability to work, or work only at a reduced capacity – already >exists, and presumably there's some way of distinguishing the people who fall under it. Sure, by medical examination. But since most people actually become unable to work somewhere around the age of 65 anyway, all those examinations will cost money without much of a benefit, and they will also touch the dignity of the people examined. We already know that most people will be less and less able to work as age approaches that number. If this actually changes, we can think about measures to counter the impact of such a phenomenon on our social security systems. But that's a problem for a time when the problem is actually there. [...] >>>>> They are primarily economic assessments, not political ones. >>>> >>>> Then why do different economists call this development differently? If >>>> there were clear and indisputable definitions in economy like you seem >>>> to assume, this could not happen. >> >>> Okay, I'll bite: Which economists don't call this a "boom"? > >> Albrecht Müller, for one rather prominent example. Joachim Jahnke. There are >> many others. They just don't have the money of the employers' association >> behind them. > So, what are their criteria for a "boom"? I mean, if they say that this isn't one, then presumably they have a > criteria for what does constitute one. A sustainable GDP growth of more than 3% for more than one year. We are not even close to this, currently. >>>>> Like I said, this is the early phase of the boom. If this continues, >>>>> then unemployment will shrink even further. >>> >>>> To what number? 8%? 7%? >> >>> I wouldn't rule it out - > >>Based on hard facts, or merely on positive thinking? > >Positive thinking, admittedly... So, the expectations are not that, but hopes. Well, I have nothing against good hope. But I wouldn't base my economic policy on that. >>> especially since the percentage of the working >>> population is set to shrink drastically. > >>But you just declared that this latter development must be stopped? > > It should be slowed to more manageable proportions. I don't think it can be stopped. See, on the one hand, you are saying that the retirement age is about to be raised because it is a bad thing, on the other hand you are saying that a higher number of retired people is a good thing because it will decrease the unemployment figures. Could you please decide for one strain of thought? >>> Currently, domestic consumption is also strongly on the rise, so the >>> export industries aren't the only sources of growth any more. > >> *Aehem*. Have you noticed that while this is claimed by many sources, few >> give hard numbers? >> >> That's because it's just that: A claim. > >> Joachim Jahnke writes on his website jjahnke.net: >>"Das Statistische Bundesamt kommt mit der Schlagzeile: „Einzelhandelsumsatz >> im März 2007 real um 0,5% gestiegen" und verbirgt es noch schamhaft im >> Kleingedruckten: „Unter Berücksichtigung von Saison- und Kalendereffekten >> sank der Umsatz im Einzelhandel im Vergleich zum Februar 2007 um nominal >> 0,6% und real 0,7%" (Abb. 04214). Seit Januar 2006 errechnet sich bereits ein >> realer Rückgang um 3 %." > >> Jürgen. Use your brain. Those reports are "creating a good mood" news. No >> substance. Read them carefully. > >Perhaps he should have read the website of the Statistisches Bundesamt a bit more carefully. Take a look at >this page, for example: > > The expeditures for consumption (using the 2000 values as a base index of 100) were 101.08 for 2004, > 101.29 for 2005, and 102.31 for 2006. That means we only had a growth of these expeditures of 0.2% for > 2005, but one of 1% for 2006. I'd call that a fairly significant jump. Sure, it's not on par with exports yet, > but it's nothing that should be ignored. Did Jahnke just ignore that? I suggest you read his website more thoroughly and that you think about the concept of nominal vs. real growth once more. 1% of nominal growth is a decrease. And most certainly, it is no "boom" on the demand side. Not at all. >>>> Of course, those "reforms" will not show any success, so they will tell >>>> us that these reforms need some time to have effect, a few years or so. >>>> >>> Structural reforms are never an instant solution to problems. They take >>> some time to pay off. > >> Again, you are repeating what the preachers told you. But okay - how long do >> you think does it take for such "reforms" to take effect? > >It has already started. So you are saying that the current slight increase in growth is due to the reforms? Or is there maybe some thing like an economic cycle? >> And, more importantly: Why? Why would entrepreneurs not notice that laws >> have changed after, say, six months or one year? Are they all too dumb? Why >> the hell should it take five. long. years for them to notice the differences? > Why do you think it is merely a matter of noticing these changes? Because the only prerequisite for investors changing their behavior is their perception of opportunities. > Pretty much all investment takes some time to pay off. But jobs are produced as soon as there is a significant increase in investment. Once the change that makes investments more profitable is noticed, investment will take place, and just in that moment, jobs are created and the unemployment figures will thus decrease. > Most new companies work at a loss for one or more years, and the same is true for new > investment within existing companies. But that's totally irrelevant for the immediate impact of investments on the creation of jobs. >>>> After a few years, the world economy will recover, like it always does >>>> due to more intelligent economic policy elsewhere, and we will have the >>>> next "boom" when everybody will be totally freaked out because >>>> the unemployment rate will have just fallen to 12%. (Assuming no one >>>> plays dirty tricks with the statistics again, which will, of course, >>>> happen.) > >>> Well, let's see how things develop. I'd say we've passed the high-end >>> threshold by now... > >>And if my prognosis comes out to be true, will you then cease to listen to the >>prayers of "give those who have more, for it shall bring salvation to all of us"? > I never did that. You do it all the time. But you don't realize it, which is even worse. Jürgen. You. Are. Being. Manipulated. Think for yourself! > In fact, I'm rather suspicious of all those ultra-large companies out there and all the subsidies they suck up. Nobody said that those lobbyist groups work only for the ultra-large companies. > More sensible economic policies would be about supporting small and medium-size companies Such as those organized in the BDI? It is their lobbyist talk that you are repeating again and again, Jürgen. Of course, your sources won't tell you. >>>>> And according to SPIEGEL.DE, a year ago we had 12.0 unemployment. I'd >>>>> call that a noticeable difference, >>>>> personally... >> >> >>>> Of course, the Spiegel forgets to mention that 9 years ago, at the >>>> beginning of the last "boom" (you may >>>> remember "Schröder's Aufschwung") was 10.1% (a number which, sadly, >>>> includes people who are no more in the >>>> statistics these days due to creative bookkeeping introduced by... >>>> Schröder's administration.) > >>> And then 9/11 happened a short time later, > >> That's completely irrelevant to the figure. > > It explains why that "boom" was essentially a non-starter – hardly irrelevant to the discussion here. But that was simply not what I was pointing at. I was pointing at the fact that the business cycles that we have (like any economy in the world) don't really help us with a sustainable decrease in unemployment figures. >> Jürgen. Think. When the last "economic boom" came, unemployment was in >> fact a little lower than these days, see above. Go back to the boom before >> that. You'll find that then, the unemployment rate was even lower before that >> boom started. > > Like I said, that boom was a non-starter. And it always takes a few years of solid economic growth until > unemployment goes down, so this doesn't invalidate my points. And the boom before that. And the boom before that. I see. But now, finally, the reforms have been done, and thus we'll see a real boom. A-ha. [...] >>> But I will bite: What news sources would you recommend? > >>The Spiegel is not a news source, it is mainly a source of political commentary. > > Is there really a distinction, these days? All news sources have bias – it's just that some of them are more > obvious about it. Well, the Spiegel's political allegiance was not obvious at least to you. In fact, you believed it to be "leftist". [...] >>>> It is also well known in our neighboring >>>> European countries that Germany is a low-wage country these days. (Of >>>> course, the Spiegel won't tell you that.) >>>> You don't have to believe me, ask newspapers from Denmark or >>>> Switzerland. >> >>> Oh, I know that. There's a reason German doctors do part-time work in >>> other countries... > >>Then why do all those other countries not have the problems Germany has? I >>mean, they have higher wages, by the "German mainstream" theory, they >>should have economies that are even weaker than ours. But the opposite is >>true. >They have problems of their own – crushing taxes (Scandinavian countries), Yeah, so incredibly crushing that their economies grow sustainably at about 2% per year and their unemployment rates are down to 4-6%. > a decrepit health system (UK), >and so forth. What has that to do with the problem with the usual theories that I mentioned above? >>>> Until we have a government that has some clue about economics and the >>>> ability to distinguish lobbyist talk from valid economic conclusions, it >>>> will not become better, and especially it will not become good. > >>>I dunno - things seem to get better already... > >>Over the past economic cycles, things have become worse. >The last upswings have missed Germany altogether, [...] I was talking about the last economic cycles in Germany, back until the 80's. You seem to be totally ignoring my arguments. I fear this is becoming a useless debate. Are you sure that you are in the right political party? >>> (Moving on to the starved unemployed guy...) [...] >>So what do you propose - that the unemployment case officers always >>assume that their clients have severe psychological problems until proven >>otherwise? > >I propose that the minimum needed for survival must never. ever. be >withdrawn from those in need. >And that need could have been easily demonstrated - if he had shown up and asked for it. Jürgen. Please. I was talking about "not withdrawing". Not about "granting". We have already established that the person in question was very likely incapable of asking for being treated special. The laws say that someone who does not look for a job shall receive no money. In other words, they say: Be active or die. Some people cannot be active. They still need food and shelter. [...] >>> How is that going to instill the confidence necessary for finding new >>> jobs into them? > >>That question, raised as a defense for the current laws, is a most cynical joke. >Well, I would have been pretty depressed if my case officer at the Arbeitsamt told me: "We have to do >regular psychological evaluations [...] Yes, right. That is exactly why I wrote what I wrote. No tests. Just unconditional money, enough to survive on it. Please. At least try to understand what I am writing. >>>> [...]If some people can't be bothered to fulfill their side of the >>>> contract - such as Henrico Frank - I consider my side of the contract >>>> as tax-payer to be void as well. >>> >>> Sure, because it is not possible that there is a reason behind such >>> strange behavior. They are just lazy parasites. >>> >>> After all, it is your hard-earned money that these people might need, >>> and you'd rather keep it for yourself. >> >> If Henrico Frank had any good reason for his behavior, I haven't heard of >> it. > > And because you did not hear of it, it does not exist. I see. > He has been in the front of a microphone often enough – so why haven't we heard of these "good reasons“ if > they exist? For example, because he is no PR professional and is nervous in front of a microphone? Just a hypothesis. >>> If someone genuinely needs the money because he has fallen on hard times >>> and wasn't able to find a job - any job - yet, I have no problem with >>> supporting him with my tax money. > >> Then why do you assume that this was different in his case? Because Kurt >> Beck's PR machinery told you? > > I did some internet research and didn't find anything offering an alternate explanation. > And presumably, Kurt Beck doesn't control the internet. In fact, you did not find any explanation except the one thing Kurt Beck said. >> [...] >>> sometimes an unemployment person is a lazy slob who can't be bothered to >>> make an effort to get >>> himself out of this situation. > >> Of course it happens. My question to you is: Do you have an idea *why*? > >Because he is afraid of change and comfortable with his life? Sigh. Have you ever tried to live on 345 Euros plus rent? >> (Story about a relative) >> [...] >>> The stupid reasons include: >>> - Buying far more tools that he ever needed, >> [...] >> That, while certainly stupid, is, most importantly, a symptom of a >> psychological disorder. Think about it. >What in your mind is the difference between a psychological disorder and just ordinary stupidity? The one with the former needs more detailed help than being told "that was stupid" and should not be blamed. But I guess compassion is out of fashion with the Greens these days. Even among family members. >> [...] >>> The only lasting solution I can see for this dilemma is to increase >>> educational standards, especially in schools. >> [...] > >> So you are saying that people must become smarter and smarter to get a job? > > Better educated. There is a limit to what you can educate people for. > Our education system isn't yet nowhere near as good as it could – and should - be. I won't disagree with you here. But it won't solve the problem of unemployment. BTW, there are unemployed but experienced engineers. How can that be, if all that is needed is useful skills? >> Well, until we see true transhumanist technology, there are natural limits to >> that that are axioms, and not variables. The economy is for the people, not the >> other way round. >That assumes that the people can exist without an economy. But economic systems have been with us ever >since humans first formed social units. Huh? No. It assumes that economy is something people do for a reason. Do you disagree? Donnerstag, 17. Mai 2007Lebensfreude!
Das ist doch, trotz und gerade wegen aller Unbill in der Welt, das Wichtigste überhaupt: Lebensfreude.
Das sollte man stets im Kopf behalten, wenn man über den nächsten Innenminister nachdenkt oder sich Gedanken über die Zukunft der deutschen Außenpolitik macht. Wenn es einem dann in der Zukunft doch zu bunt wird, kann man ja immer noch was tun. |
KalenderSucheVerwaltung des Blogs |