Trigger
The so called Enquete Kommission
“Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität - Wege zu nachhaltigem Wirtschaften und
gesellschaftlichem Fortschritt in der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft” (a joint federal,
parliamentary commission of elected representatives and university professors
to investigate economic growth, prosperity, quality of life) just released
their final report on 4/6/2013.
What Is In A Title
You would think that the title
of this commission entails the research subject. However, if the title already
reveals that the agenda is narrowed by bias and ideologically loaded terms,
then what do you expect the result of such a commission to be like?
The title of the final report
contains a series of questionable terms:
- “nachaltige[s] Wirtschaften”
(sustainable economy): This is a faddish, amorphous term guided by
environmentalism.
- “gesellschaftlichen
Fortschritt” (societal progress): What about individual progress, freedom and
responsibility?
- “Soziale Marktwirtschaft”
(social market economy): One of those much abused terms of German postwar
political discourse. Another name for the so called third way between socialism
and free market economy. Whatever that may be?
Just A Short Excerpt
I don’t claim to have read the
entire 844 page long report. So I limit myself to a very brief excerpt from
this tome to give the reader a flavor. I would bet that the entire report is
not much better than this excerpt.
On page 43 of the final report
we read (emphasis added):
“Ludwig Erhard [father of the German Economic Miracle] hat dies
treffend formuliert [an excerpt from his most famous book titled “Wohlstand
fuer Alle”]:
„Wohlstand für alle und
Wohlstand durch Wettbewerb gehören
untrennbar zusammen; das erste Postulat kennzeichnet das Ziel, das zweite
den Weg, der zu diesem Ziel führt.“9
Das zentrale Ziel der Politik
ist also der Wohlstand aller Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Wirtschaftliches Wachstum dagegen ist kein politisches Ziel.
Es ist vielmehr ein guter – wenn auch unvollkommener – Indikator dafür, wie
sich die wirtschaftliche Situation und damit der materielle Wohlstand der
Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer sowie der Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer
im Durchschnitt verändert. Unberücksichtigt bleiben dabei insbesondere
Verteilungsaspekte, die Entwicklung der nichtmateriellen Lebensqualität sowie
die Erfordernisse der Nachhaltigkeit.
So kann Wachstum auch bedeuten, dass nur
wenige einen materiellen Fortschritt erfahren, während die wirtschaftliche
Situation aller anderen stagniert”
For sake of brevity and lack
of time I will not attempt her to translate this excerpt, but I intend to
interpret it.
The great former federal
minister of economics Ludwig Erhard in his seminal book clearly postulated the inseparable
duality of economic growth and economic competition, but the authors of this
report recognize only economic growth as an economic policy goal and explicitly
deny economic competition such a role. One without the other, how foolish is
that?
Sustainability like in
sustainable economic growth is heralded as an essential requirement, which it
is not. Notions of sustainability are born out of irrational fears.
The authors bemoan the possibility
that economic growth benefits only a few individuals in their material well
being. This kind of outcome is more probable if economic competition is
constraint, e.g. by ever busy politicians meddling with the free market economy. This is one reason why
economic competition is so fundamental to prevent such undesirable economic outcomes.
How many German elected representatives or even professors understand this
relationship?
