The above is not a traditional criticism against capitalism. Recently a capitalism criticism has unexpectedly emerged among German intellectuals. Schirrmacher, born in 1959 in Wiesbaden, studied in Heidelberg and Cambridge. He is a doctor in Philosophy and, since 1994, editor of the renowned German newspaper. Schirrmacher is the author of the book, Ego. The title is stealing hearts and minds because it questions the margins of freedom of States nowadays, facing an automatized economy based in a “radical selfishness and amoral”. Karl Blessing just published the book.

According to Schirrmacher, the capitalist system is getting out of hand to an extent that we can talk of a general manipulation by “the monstrous economy of nowadays”; which means “a new cold war where only your own benefit matters, and moral is not important”. A new economic dictate–where only automatic machines manage stock and exchange markets, like in Wall Street. Estimating that governments are loosing their independence and autonomy.

Therefore, democracies become puppets of the markets, the ball with which the monster plays. A game we will all loose one day.

In his book Ego, Frank Schirrmacher, criticises the fact that the inhuman model “homo economicus” has the power to govern the real economy and the individuals, society, institutions and democracy. This egoist model has information capitalism at its core due to a complete digitalization of the economy. Therefore market’s principles are universalised as if it were a casino. How did this happen? Schirrmacher points out: due to Game Theory.

The basis of the economic use of game theory has its origin in the pioneer essay of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, “Games theory and economic behaviour”, published in 1944. Today the Games Theory is a major tool for the  analysis of political economy. In 1994 the North American professors  John C. Harsányi y John F. Nash and the German Reinhard Selten, from Friedrich-Wilhelm University, in  Bonn, where awarded the Nobel Economics Prize for their “fundamental analysis of the balance in the non-cooperative Game theory.

Game theory gained momentum during the Cold War. The Americans quickly identified the advantages this theory presented in the context of the conflict with the Soviet Union. It was later applied to the economy. Schirrmacher: “now it is not used against the soviets but against all of us.” The principles of Game Theory are behind all the mathematical programs used by investors, bankers, brokers and companies facing competition and rivalry.

On top of that, there’s a basic rule that makes every player follows it’s very own interests, in a rational way and with the sole aim of earning benefits. Where is it applied? In financial markets, in the derivatives business and the acquisition of companies. Selfishness is the basis of the radical market doctrine.

Schirrmacher has received criticism from Germany arguing that even though his is a Smart analysis of the current economy, he fails to give any solution. Instead he appeals to the real economy and expects SMEs to react.

According to the editor of the weekly Der Spiegel, Jakob Augstein, your latest book “is an intellectual joy and transmits a political signal of hope because scepticism (toward the current system) increases.” What’s the main problem of our economic system?

I will use the current euro crisis as en example, which is the most interesting case resulting from the application of the new economy. Every day, we listen to the same old song: politicians are trying to solve the crisis and the economic problems that come with it. But the truth is that, since the bankruptcy of Lehmann, politics are part of a game that as any poker game has one main goal: avoiding bankruptcy. And if wining is not possible, at least one should try to keep playing. What do I mean with this? Well, take Germany as an example. Mrs. Angela Merkel is only “buying time” with her European policy. On the other hand, we got so much used to these new rules of the new economy that we fail to realize they demand players a different rationality than the one we considered normal before the crisis. The most surprising thing is how fast our understanding of what is reasonable is changing.

Could you please tell me what is reasonable and what is not in terms of the management of this crisis?

This rationality can be defined from the Game Theory’s point of view. This Game theory–the modality developed by John F. Nash, which became an important strategic weapon during the Cold War. And also highlighted by senator Obama in 2004 referring to  the Soviet Union–is based in a mathematical formula  where all players look for their very own interests looking to achieve the maximum benefit.

An interesting and efficient model in the context of the bipolar and paranoid world before 1989. When no one wanted to be the first victim of the Atomic bomb. Nonetheless, when this model is applied to the management of the crisis, the rationality through which problems are seen changes. Imagine what happens when Maths are taking the stage: applied algorithms–following the principle of the Game Theory and maximum benefit–in the stock markets which, at the same time, act at a very high frequency. You may read the book Dark Pools. I recommend it. We know what was said about the  American financial group AIG  and the Federal National Mortgage Association Fannie Mae:  “They won’t let us drown because with us the  world will drown”. Or if we recall the words of the American businessman Warren Buffet in 2008 referring to the business of financial derivatives as “weapons of mass destruction.”

Is this a war?

It’s a new Cold War between the civil society and the modern financial markets. But it’s a situation we are not fully aware of because we all tend to judge these mechanisms from a moral point of view. And this attitude doesn’t take us too far; except for the case of events such Indignez-vous! (the French Stéphane Hessel’s essay) or the Indignados movement. However, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that a new rationality has emerged. So we need to ask ourselves what is rational and what is not. In my book I talk about all this. Politicians and financial players are asking themselves how a European country should act to operate reasonably. But the Game Theory sees following one’s interests as the rational thing to do. Hence, one’s interests might not necessarily meet the interests’ of the rest. And what I am saying is not a theory, rather the mindset of  the powerful bodies we have nowadays.

For instance?

In 2012 a study from Bank of America estimated that Europe would fall apart starting from Italy. The bank used the Game theory to built its argument, saying that “the price of the Italian rescue was too high; whereas the price of Europe’s disintegration was acceptable”. These kinds of evaluations have nothing to do with politics. The most serious thing is that these reductionists models, developed first to be used as investment strategies, might end up creating the reality they talk about.

What is happening nowadays in Europe sounds like a rational selfishness manual. Another example is the doctrine of reciprocal dissuasion that follows a rational behaviour by creating fear. Europe is only using fear as an argument: if you don’t do it this way, if you are not cooperative, you’ll drown. Something that I see as very alarming.

In Germany we have Merkel’s motto: There is no alternative. Yet, politics is a science that always entails alternatives. But since we forget about it, we find ourselves in a very delicate situation. Germany pays and others hate her because the popular argument among other countries is the following: Germans are paying little because they want to save themselves, but we pay the price for it.

How can we get back to normal?

Homo economicus was always just a model. Now it is part of a mathematical model and it is considered the ideal one in the context of the digital economic era we live nowadays. The fact that economists are the ones who talk about the monster or the Frankestein laboratories of Wall Street is not a coincidence. Like the former German federal president Horst Köhler, who was director of the IMF between 2000 and 2004. Reagan talked about the economics of the spirit, but it was a reaction against the deindustrialization system in the USA and the new digital wave. At the beginning it sounded good: the magic of an iPhone. When in the eighteenth century the vascular circulatory system was discovered, the economy took it as an image to explain their economic theories. Nowadays we take the nervous system.

Internet and the digital world are a nervous system. A system already described by Friedrich Hayek in the 50s: an economy with stimulus, investments and disinvestment. That’s why we are now all connected to this economy that comprises everything, from high-frequency markets to Facebook accounts. They all look for preferences: from Wall Street robots to Amazon’s algorithms able to automatically recommend books when one accesses their online store. Also the friends we find in Facebook represent the new economy. I am not a cultural pessimist. I think it is great Amazon recommends me some books. Nevertheless, I can’t overlook the fact that all the systems in this world are organized in the same manner. Following the efficiency model of Homo Economicus. A model where the only thing that matters are the preferences of all the actors in the market. Where these preferences come from is not relevant. In the context of digital economy there is nothing as efficient as the Game Theory to discover the preferences of those who are an active part of the market. As a result we live in a permanent auction state. Something that worries me a lot: life, success, achievements, one’s biography… Everything is permanently evaluated in a permanent auction. Which means that each and every one of us must be able to always sell oneself as if one where in an auction.

Mr Schirrmacher, do we need a new capitalism?

Germany had a new capitalism; the social market economy. It would have been a success if exported globally: A vision, a good idea for Europe.

Brussels want to cut bankers’ salaries, symbol of the financial crisis’ greed. The German SPD party wants to make the fight against the disproportionate financial system the tenet of their electoral campaign. Because the Germans support a bigger control of the Banks. The very Bundestag now wants to limit the computerized business with stocks. The financial expert, Carsten Sieleing, from the SPD wants the ownership of stocks to be at least longer than a minute and a half. Is that enough? Are we on the right path? Or the financial world has already gotten out of hand?

Indeed, there are things being done. I follow  the debate about the need of limiting the high frequency commerce. However, I think we must question the rationality behind presumably rational actions. Thus, for instance, now everybody thinks is not rational to talk about an idea of Europe that requires money as a way to ensure European cooperation. Why this has to be irrational? Or isn’t politics also in charge of moving things that are not part of the economy? Well, what we are living is actually the opposite. And the worst thing is that even the Law has become a commercial priority. Something that sometimes is valid but sometimes is not. How could some European politicians seriously suggest that elections won’t be held in the South for some time? In other words, people won’t vote to avoid creating greater market insecurity. I understand why they are worried. But I also understand this is the path toward a permanent state of emergency.

In Spain there is the feeling that the Germans are here to tell the South how to do things well. Does Germany get everything right?

After the bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, the former president of the American Central Bank Alan Greenspan said that incredible sentence: “Our entire mental structure has just collapsed.” That’s why I’d rephrase your question. From my point of view this crises could be an opportunity to politically review our way of thinking. Economy is not an exact science. Neither are physics, even though they constantly affirm it is. Merkel’s physics, as well as many other European politicians’, should do what they already know they should be doing: give priority to politics ahead of pure economics. If not, economic imperialism will intervene economizing everything, including private life. This is the madness of many politicians: be able to manage societies through behavioural economics. But we have already seen that through incentives one can’t govern well enough a society. There’s always the need to make a social and political decision. And only the money and the benefits can achieve so. And there is exactly where a great part of the political debate is failing nowadays.

Also in Germany the trend is moving toward greater social inequality. Specially due to the divisions created by the labour market when they separate precarious, temporal and bad paid work, from the qualified and well-paid job. We also see a strong division in education. Between the well educated kids from accommodated social clases and kids from poorer families. There’s also the retirement dilemma. Which ideals do we need? How to fight for them?

In my opinion, the issue of how we see the future is the most important point. One of neoliberalism’s collateral effects comes with a slogan: “one is responsible for one’s luck”. Before Lehman’s fall, the esoteric book “The secret” was a world best seller. The message was pretty clear: “you can have it all. The only thing you need to do is wanting it”. This is the trivial version but is very interesting as a cultural symptom. The journalist Barbara Ehrenreich explains she attended one of the “Secret” classes until one day she told her mentor: “it doesn’t work”. He replied with a question: “you mean it doesn’t work with you?”. I see in this anecdote an example of what we are going through. Everything is possible: you can be a Youtube star, be famous and rich! Everything is possible, but, unfortunately for you it is not. The “economy of spirit”, that evaluates and sells thoughts has also economized our soul. This is like when Alchemists wanted to turn lead into gold. And since they couldn’t make it work they said it was due to the soul, that it wasn’t pure enough”. This is the new orthodoxy.

And how we change it?

I’ll quote the book of Linkedin’s chief, the biggest professional platform in the world. He says something like the following: “do not hold on yourself. Instead become a liquid matter, you are a different person every moment”. To put it simple: where there is no Me –what is something more than his/her economic priorities-, you don’t need to be loyal, you don’t need long term contracts. Here we get very close to the mathematical games they used to play with us in current economy. My suggestion is: do not play.

What does do not play mean in the case of Europe?

In particular, not to play would mean both for Europe and Germany deciding that these continent and its youth is highly valuable for all of us. But it should be us who put the price for it, not the stock exchange. How much is a cooperative Europe? What sovereign rights and competences do we have to transfer, also Germany, to build a strong continent? Europe is not Ayn Rand (the Russian writer that defended rational selfishness and laissez faire capitalism, rejecting socialism, altruism and religion). It is not China either.  The vision you were asking for earlier can be found in our history books. To be clear, Europeans will have to decide what price are we ready to pay for a cooperative Europe. Not for an egoist Europe.

The post Long read | “Angela Merkel is only buying time with her European policy” appeared first on The Corner.

The reason would be that “the SMC index shows a higher correlation degree to the country’s economic situation–the index of economic sentiment or ICE–than the general index. We expect the ICE to stabilise above 90 points,” Cortal Consors analysts explained.

But the GDP contraction in most macroeconomics scenarios for Spain could be of at least over -1 percent. That is why the small cap index may suffer from excessive valuation and “during the rest of the year, the Ibex should improve its performance against the SMC,” according to BNP Paribas broker. It also added, nevertheless, that Spain’s trade deficit in January fell to -€3.5 billion (it was -€3.7 twelve months ago) due to “renewed dynamism” in exports activity.

The post Monday’s chart: hopeful about the Ibex appeared first on The Corner.

The Spanish economy is nowadays in a very difficult situation. The good news is that the big mistakes have already been made: for example, unsustainable growth in the housing sector and insufficient regulation of mortgages by the Bank of Spain are behind us, now.

For some time both the society and the government have acknowledged this and they are correcting those faults. An example of that is unemployment, soaring right now. But fixing that takes time. How long? I do not think there really are economists trained to predict the end of crises, and this one is no different in that sense. However, we can note that the Spanish economy is much more competitive than a few years ago.

German analysts say that Spain will ask for a bailout and that will activate the purchase of bonds by the ECB. What happens to Spain, then?

A rescued country looks like a young twenty-something who returns to live with his parents after a period of freedom: while he gets help and security, and does not have to pay the rent or the food he finds in the fridge, he loses sovereignty and isn’t as free as before on how to live his life. A bailout is something that is not good for a nation’s pride, just for its pockets. It’s a situation that one must to agree with, but of which one wants to get out.

Anyway, it is not clear to me that Spain will prompt the bailout. The Spanish government now has to pay interests equivalent to three percent of Spanish GDP. And in 1996, interests represented more than five percent.

According to the IMF, there it comes a point at which austerity causes an increase in the deficit, not a reduction… Would you say that the scope and speed of the reform programme of the Spanish government are appropiate?

Compared to countries like Portugal or Greece, the Spanish government has not yet improved its accounts. The primary balance of Greece, for example improved from a deficit of 10% in 2009 to a surplus of 3% in 2012. Greece’s problem is the excessive debt burden. Compared with Greece, Spain has much less debt, but suffers the problem of high unemployment, which reduces revenue and increases government spending.

The ECB’s decision to support future bailouts with bond purchases is accepted with reservations in Germany. Despite the backing of Angela Merkel, the Bundesbank fears inflation risk could spike and countries in crisis would delay their reforms. Are these fears justified, though?

The truth is that almost no German likes the idea that the ECB could expand its monetary-policy mandate to actively finance states. But sometimes you have to do things you do not like. The ECB has the advantage of an infinite credit line. That gives a lot of weight to the words of Mario Draghi. And if Mr. Draghi achieves only with his words to lower interest rates for Spain’s government debt and others, then it’s great. And it is convenient in many ways, because it seems that the interests for private companies in the countries are guided by the interest paid on the public debt.

If words are not enough, the ECB has said it will buy bonds only for the states that ask for help to the European rescue fund ESM. That’s important because governments interested in obtaining aid must first negotiate with the ESM, the EU and the IMF, which means there will be a loss of sovereignty. But that in turn guarantees that no state will require a rescue from the ESM and ECB before thinking twice.

Draghi stressed to the Bundestag: “First, it is not a disguised mechanism to finance governments, and second, it will not compromise the independence of the ECB; third, the central bank will not assume excessive risk for taxpayers; fourth, it will not generate inflation.” Are you convinced?

The truth is that it is technically not state funding, but, indirectly, it can be. Otherwise, why would this measure be so attractive to states that suffer high interest rates? Therefore, there are risks to taxpayers. If a state becomes insolvent, and government bonds held by the ECB lose much of its value, member states will have to refinance the ECB. And yes, it will be paid by taxpayers.

Do you believe that Germany will accept Eurobonds in the future? Are there alternatives? Or are you against debt pooling?

R. If you and I want a loan, why do not we go together to the bank to ask, considering that we could even get a slightly lower interest? Because it carries risks. If I fail to pay interest and principal debt, the bank will go after you. It’s the same with Eurobonds. It can encourage excessive debt and can cause that kind of attitude, expecting that someone else will pay your bill. This would spark misunderstandings and lead to more tension in the euro zone, I have no doubt, so please, let us not use the plague to cure the flu.

The crisis has put Europe at a crossroads, and beyond the euro’s design problems, some politicians have opened talk about creating a new capitalism. What do you think? To what kind of capitalism are we headed?

It is an interesting question, but also a very difficult one. Now it happens that we’re all a little tired of capitalism and its crises: the banking crisis, the crisis of the construction sector, the Euro crisis… But let’s not forget that even the most closed communist economic system has its crises. If we look to my country, we’ll see that Germany’s liberalism and our social market economy, with its faults, has provided a whole society with welfare levels unknown just a few decades ago. And if you look above the current crises, it is clear that the financial sector has assumed an important role. So you have to study why and reach appropriate conclusions.

The SPD wants to make of bank regulation a central issue of its campaign, along with the dilemma of increased social inequality in Germany…

The issue of banking regulation, while important, it’s too complicated to make electoral slogans. It appears that the inequality of wages will be the dominant theme in this election.

The SPD speaks of welfare levels. What do you think is the key to the German success?

I don’t think we want to get too many medals, actually. Right now, we enjoy in Germany acceptable economic conditions and a labour market that works pretty well. But not long ago, less than ten years, we were called “the sick man of Europe”. Germany has no raw materials or large-scale tourism, so we have to invest in infrastructure and science, innovation, and so on. As for infrastructure, Germany has plenty, especially since there is no single big core or centre. There are several major cities: Berlin for politics, Frankfurt for the financial world, Hamburg is the city of maritime trade, and Cologne for the media… And more important than those cities, for the German economic development model, are the regions. Thus, rural areas as West Westphalia, have enough people, with enough schools and colleges, with adequate public transport and the necessary infrastructure to host some of the most successful companies in Germany, even though they are not the largest.

You’ve lived in Spain. What should the government do next to ensure the future of its economy?

First, it needs to communicate well. Spain is going through a process of adaptation that is painful for many Spaniards. Those who suffer unemployment or state spending cuts deserve that the government explains its decisions. It shows respect for the citizen. Second, it must nurture investor confidence. The Spanish government needs a coherent strategy and decide where to cut now and where to invest later. That strategy is now hardly visible. Third, it must take the long view.

Previous governments–and I say this without preferences on the right or the left–sometimes chose short-term decisions instead of having a vision. Spain is a country with great potential. It has a well-trained youth, has a sector that will always be there, tourism, and has the Castilian, a language spoken in most of Latin America, a region that is likely to grow. Once the crisis abates, Spain must realise that potential. I think Spain has to invest in R & D and facilities to innovative companies and help young jobseekers.

And foster unity. From the outside it looks like a divided country. It is also very negative the level of political quarrels between right and left, quarrels that we don’t see in Germany. Nor have we so much division between regions. Here in Germany, we have a crucial growth factor: the principle of consensus in the company, the mutual respect between employers and workers. This implies that, within the range of normal rivalries, Germany is a relatively united state, which facilitates changes and reforms.

What does the future hold for Europe’s welfare state system?

The question is whether we can afford it. All that social assistance, everyone has to pay for it with his taxes. If Europe maintains its competitiveness, there will be no problems.

The post Klaus Hafemann: “Spanish debt interests are 3% of GDP, much lower than in 1996″ appeared first on The Corner.

Huber, who is also a member of the supervisory board of Audi, Siemens, Porsche and Volkswagen, is convinced of the important role of co-management in German companies, which allows employees to have a role in the direction and management of the company.

As head of the largest union in his country, he is concerned that German companies are not sufficiently prepared for a new crisis. He defends the tools used by Berlin in 2008 to protect jobs: reduced working hours and incentives to increase vehicle sales. “We should extend to two years the regulation of reduced working hours because of decreasing sales (currently it’s only six months) and extend it to temporary workers.”

A few days ago, Swiss sociologist Jean Ziegler said that he would take speculators to court for “crimes against humanity”. How can unions change the economic fabric for a better society?

The problem is not individual greed but certain structures that on one hand reward greed and, on the other hand, can cause a huge damage. That is why we are for regulation of financial markets to prevent rampant and unlimited speculation.

On the other hand, companies have co-determination, which is the tool that allows us to influence business decisions. Such pricing policies and business create safety for workers and allow them to appreciate their jobs. In other words, this type of management in companies is part of the necessary structures to prevent greed from prevailing in social structures.

On the occasion of the demonstration called by Spanish unions UGT and CCOO last September, you declared your solidarity with the Spanish workers “who are fighting for a social Europe”…

Our European dream is and will be a united Europe without borders and with a peaceful common future, social security and economic and social welfare. But these days experience teaches us that the dream is not achieved only by dreaming about it. I mean that to achieve the European dream, we must work and fight with determination. And that dream has nothing to do with the free movement of capital and a free self-service system for international financial capitalism.

Europe cannot be a community that benefits only the banks, it has to protect its citizens. The Europe for which we fought means a better life and work for all citizens. For all these reasons we maintain a close relationship with the Spanish unions and support one another in our efforts to a social Europe.

Is Angela Merkel’s government wrong? Don’t you think that the combination of the crisis and the austerity measures designed by Germany will generate further economic imbalances and inequalities in Europe?

A policy based only on savings has dire consequences for the industry and employment. It might also end up destroying the same social state. The consolidation of the economy can only function if the economy grows, too. That is why Europe needs to invest in industries that can grow. That would reduce the imbalances.

What future do you see for the welfare state–social rights, protection against dismissal, and so on–after the crisis?

The welfare state does not only cover the social risks of citizens but it is also a key factor of economic stability. The fact that it is only seen as a burden and as a cost factor is a big problem, precisely now when we see that the welfare state can stabilize economic demand and generate social consensus. Incidentally, this is also our experience in Germany: we overcame the crisis between 2008 and 2010. So I am convinced that the welfare state has a great future, even after the crisis.

You have spoken in favor of a Marshall Plan for activating growth in southern Europe. Who would fund a project like that? Would the Germans be willing to put their part?

European countries can only emerge from the crisis with competitive industries. Any other formula is not viable in the long term. That means we must invest in training, qualification, research and infrastructure. To finance that we first need a European economic government democratically controlled.

We also need a new system of compensation for these charges. We will have to create a fair tax system, in which large fortunes also do their part to overcome this crisis. That would be the alternative to the current policy based solely on austerity. In the same time it would buy time to find a way out from the crisis.

In Germany we see that, despite the strong demand for skilled workers, one in four employees works in precarious and low-paid jobs. Your union seeks a reform in the labor market to give dignity back to workers. How?

Work has to go become something more than an occupation that ensures only pure existence. Of course, pay is important. But it’s not all. Work is a precondition, is what allows people to demand their rights and fulfil their obligations.

Good work brings self-esteem and provides a source of recognition and realization. We therefore need a new labor policy. What does that mean? Reducing precarious work, introducing a minimum wage in Germany and delete temporary contracts unsubstantiated. But we also need to stabilize the wage system.

You stated that many German companies are not ready to face a new crisis. Why?

Many companies are not prepared to deal with all possible scenarios and contingencies. From 2010 till now German industry has made great business and has recorded excellent benefits. Many companies thought this was going to go on forever. But capitalism’s current simulator is much more susceptible against large crisis. That is also one of the consequences of uncontrolled financial markets, blind to the long-term.

As a member of several supervisory boards of large German companies I have asked many people lately how much the next crisis could last. And I do not get any clear answer. I’ve also asked about the impact that a new crisis could have on employees and demand. Here again, I haven’t received a clear answer either. But in an increasingly volatile and unstable economy like ours, that’s what I expect from company’s managers: clear answers.

The post Berthold Huber: “We need a democratically elected European government” appeared first on The Corner.

Germany is wealthier than ever. But who is tapping that wealth? The wealthy. Private asset volume in Germany has rocketed since 2007, yet 10 percent of the population amass 53 percent of the total. And the state is growing poorer: its net assets have decreased in €800 billion during the past 20 years.

Income has dropped by at least 40 percent of the people employed. Jobs with less-than-20-hour work rotas, €400-a-month jobs and temporary hirings represent nowadays 25 percent of all jobs. And while in, say Spain, 32 percent of university students come from low-income and working class families, in Germany they are a mere 6 percent, which pairs Chancellor Angela Merkel’s country with Slovenia as the OECD members with the lowest rates of social diversity accessing high education.

Up to 8 million workers have a minijob or low-wage positions in the services sector. Their income is, by the way, below the minimum €600 threshold that is usually set as the sufficient-insufficient barrier to live in Germany.

Almost three million Germans live on social benefits because they have nothing else, and they don’t have pensions. In fact, they cannot receive any help, not even national health service attention, until they have used up first all their assets. Then, aid comes under strict conditions, one of which is to do community work paid with one euro per hour.

Mainly women and independent male workers born between 1957 and 1966 risk suffering poverty when they retire. To receive an above-€650 pension, Germans must have worked during 35 years at least, without gaps, with a gross salary of €2,500.

So what will Merkel do? Because pensions are scheduled to be cut down in the future, as introduced by the previous social-democrat government. Today, Germans receive 50 percent of their net salary if they paid social insurance during 45 years. After the reform takes place, it will be 43 percent, an many pensions, like mine, will be lower than €600.

The post Germany’s boom is wreaking the country appeared first on The Corner.