Broadcasting to Politicians' Service

In an outrageous act became reality what was expected but journalists and constitutional law exports and many more hoped to prevent: The conservative majority of the board of the public broadcaster ZDF denied extending the contract of chief editor Nikolaus Brender. The board clearly overstepped its competencies since it's not responsible for staffing while the general director Markus Schächter supported his chief editor.

The conservative politicians do not even have a guilty conscience and consider the decision a normal process. Their understanding of separation of powers is totally flawed:

Jahrelang haben in der Tendenz CDU und CSU Wahlen gewonnen, nicht jedoch die SPD - das müsse sich doch im ZDF ausdrücken.
-- In the last years [the conservative parties] CDU and CSU have won the elections while the [left-leaning] SPD has not - this needs to be reflected in the ZDF.

On questions why politicians can choose "their" journalists the chairman of the board, populist and Minister President of Hesse Roland Koch (CDU) asks the counter-question:

Und dass Bischöfe diejenigen aussuchen, die über sie Bericht erstatten, damit haben Sie keine Probleme?
-- Why aren't you concerned about bishops choosing their journalists?

In his arrogance he ignores the fact that the church does not have executive power while it is part of the society - in contrary to politicians. The independence of the ZDF is now questioned of course. The comparison to Italian public broadcasting RAI where Silvio Berlusconi installed suitable journalists is legitimate. Unfortunately, just like Berlusconi, Roland Koch also gets elected repeatedly and despite all the scandals.

I can see only one positive aspect: A constitutional challenge might end the politician's influence on the board. It only takes one third of the members of the Deutscher Bundestag to vote for it. But when a politician of the SPD already speaks out against such a case since it might do harm to the ZDF I get angry. What can be worse than a public broadcasting service without independence from politicians?

Ursachensuche

Die Wahlen sind vorbei. Das Ergebnis ist noch schlimmer als befürchtet - und als die letzten Umfragen vorhergesagt haben. Bei 26% wurde die SPD in Umfragen kurz vor der Wahl gesehen. Optimisten hatten sogar gehofft, dass die SPD ihr schlechtestes Ergebnis seit Kriegsende (1953: 28,8%) noch vermeiden könnte. Nichts war es. Ganze 23% standen am Ende zu Buche.

Woran lag es nun? Die Welt erlebt gerade die schwerste Wirtschaftskrise seit der Großen Depression. Davor gab es über mehrere Jahre einen weltweiten Aufschwung. Und jeder wollte einen möglichst großen Anteil vom Kuchen abhaben. Deregulierung war angesagt, Rekordboni wurden gezahlt. Die einzige Bevölkerungsgruppe, die davon überdurchschnittlich profitiert hat, sind die reichsten 10%. Deren Anteil am Gesamtvermögen betrug 2007 61,1% nach 57,9% im Jahr 2002. Alle anderen Bevölkerungsgruppen haben in diesen 5 Jahren anteilig Vermögen verloren oder maximal ihren Anteil gehalten (DIW Wochenbericht 4/2009, S. 6).

Die Auswirkungen der Krise sind gravierend. Die unmittelbare Folge sind massive Staatsdefizite durch die Rettungspakete, hohe Arbeitslosenzahlen konnten zunächst durch die Kurzarbeitregelungen vermieden werden, bescheren dem Staatshaushalt aber weitere Milliardenausfälle. Nun werden Steuersenkungen versprochen, von denen wiederum die Besserverdienenden überproportional profitieren. Und angesichts von Rekorddefiziten geht dies auch nur bei Rückbau des Sozialstaates - auf Kosten der Geringverdiener. Und doch sorgen die Deutschen für ein Rekordergebnis der Wirtschaftsliberalen bei den Wahlen. Absurd?

Ein Rückblick: 1998, nach 16 Jahren Helmut Kohl und Schwarz-Gelb, von denen vor allem die letzte Legislaturperiode treffend mit Reformstau zusammengefasst werden kann, kam es endlich zum Wechsel der Regierung hin zu Rot-Grün. Neben den wirtschaftspolitischen Reformen gab es auch sozialpolitische Reformen, deren Nachwirkungen nun für die SPD noch viel gravierender sind. Die Reizwörter sind Agenda 2010 und Hartz IV; von Verrat an der eigenen Wählerschaft ist die Rede. Und natürlich muss man es nicht unbedingt als Auszeichnung ansehen, wenn eine Partei, die "sozial" im Namen hat, vom liberalsten Wirtschaftsmagazin The Economist gelobt wird. Fakt ist aber, dass Deutschland unter Gerhard Schröder vom Sorgenkind wieder zum Musterschüler Europas wurde.

Härten und Ungerechtigkeiten lassen sich zahlreiche finden und über Korrekturen sollte sicher nachgedacht werden. Das Hauptproblem der SPD sind aber nicht die Gesetze selbst, sondern dass es versäumt wurde, diese und deren Notwendigkeit den Leuten zu erklären - und das über die ganzen Jahre. Die Basta-Attitüde von Gerhard Schröder war auch alles andere als hilfreich.

Mit dem Deutschlandplan hat die SPD den großen Befreiungsschlag versucht - und ist mangels eigener Hartnäckigkeit grandios gescheitert. Nach ersten abfälligen Kommentaren aus den anderen politischen Lagern gab es viel Zustimmung. Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen: Die SPD war die einzige Partei mit einer Vision für ein zukunftsfähiges Deutschland! Und doch verschwand der Plan viel zu schnell in der Schublade und hat am Ende faktisch keine Rolle mehr im Wahlkampf gespielt. Ist man an der eigenen Courage gescheitert? Waren die Parallelitäten zu groß zur Agenda 2010?

Die FDP sollte sich nicht allzu viel auf ihr Ergebnis einbilden. Diese Wahl war keine Wahl liberaler Politik, sondern in erster Linie eine Abwahl der großen Koalition, wie auch das Rekordergebnis der Linken zeigt. Und doch stellt die SPD einen Sonderfall dar; man verliert nicht einmal so eben ein Drittel seiner Wähler. Aber nicht wegen schlechter Politik, sondern wegen schlechter Kommunikation und unklarer Strategie ist die SPD gescheitert. Eigentlich kann es nur als positiv angesehen werden, dass die SPD jetzt nicht an der Regierung beteiligt ist. Eine weitere große Koalition hätte ihr angesichts der sich abzeichnenden Probleme im Staatshaushalt vermutlich vollends das Genick gebrochen. Die FDP wird auf den Boden der Tatsachen zurückgeholt werden, weil versprochene Wohltaten nicht finanzierbar sind. Und für 2013 hoffe ich auf eine neue SPD-geführte Regierung.

Lame Duck Season

It's only one year ago. George W. Bush draw his last breaths politically. And the US had one of their most interesting election campaigns. Not because it was likely Barack Obama being elected the first black president, but because he wanted to fix the US:

That is our purpose here today. That is why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation. I want to win that next battle — for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle — for better schools, and better jobs, and better health care for all. I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

Now, Obama is struggling with fulfilling many of his election promises, in particular the health care reform. US media, even as serious as CNN, are reporting on the most ridiculous topics to discredit him or his plans.

But even this is more interesting than what's going on in Germany only one month away from Germany's most important election. It feels like they want to bring forward the lame duck season before election since we don't have one after it.

The conservative Christian Democratic Union refuses to debate. Their slogan is a meaningless:

We have the strength. Together for our country.

Or - with a plunging neckline:

We have more to offer.

Two programmatic issues called attention within the last half a year: The ridiculous election promise of tax cuts if there is some leeway. Germany has a record deficit this year due to the economic crisis and the aftermath will last for another few years. And the fight against the internet and its users.

The second major party, the Social Democratic Party has a credibility problem since they have been part of the government for the last 11 years. They are now supposed to be an alternative? They have been at all-time poll lows in the last months. The current crisis has been summarized with "privatizing profits and socializing costs". What could have been easier for a left-leaning party to base an aggressive election campaign on it? But there is hardly any attack.

Lately there was some ray of hope. So far the SPD stuck to their old mantra of "saving jobs" as seen again with Opel and Karstadt. Typically a pure waste of money since it's not possible to work against the market. But few weeks ago - what a surprise! - the SPD published its Plan for Germany. Creating 4 million jobs in future economic sectors like medical services and green technologies. That was something to discuss about at least. Maybe even reasonable when giving up trying to save old industries. But where is the debate on the plan? Instead media focused on a stolen car of a minister.

Don't we really deserve a better? Don't we have a bunch problems currently that politicians should have visions how to solve them? What will a possible TV debate between the two candidates Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier be like? A sleeping pill? With the lamest election campaign ever I can also foresee the voter turnout: It's going to be the lowest in history. And with the law for blocking internet addresses both parties have gambled away their credits of trust from the next generation.

Disclaimer: I consider myself left-leaning, though supporting the ideas of free market within boundaries, i.e. regulations. At the moment it is really hard to see any reason for voting except for the civic duty. Yes, I will vote nevertheless. But I'm frustrated with the dullness of our politicians and what's NOT going on at the moment.

The Unhealthy Market

Germany does not only have the world's oldest universal health care system, from an exterior view it apparently is even one of the best. Observing the discussions here you can get the impression though the German health care system is on the brink of ruin with patient care imperiled, doctors facing insolvency and sky-rocketing costs. I guess it depends on who you listen to, not to say who is lobbying.

One thing is for sure: The German health care system has a lot of inefficiencies. There are for example still 200 statutory insurances (dropped from 1200 in 1991; article in German) all having to offer the same services. The premium is paid as percentage of gross pay. Until last year there was at least competition in price, the range was from 12 to 16 %, half paid by employer, half by employee. In 2009 this competition has been eliminated and all insurances have the premium rate of 15.5 % (temporarily reduced to 14.9 % with the stimulus package). When any competition is eliminated why having 200 insurances, all with their administrative expenses?

Another example - the actual topic of this post - are the regulations for pharmacies. A pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist (with the respective university degree) and he or she can only own up to 4 pharmacies. The European Court of Justice had to decide whether these regulations are compliant with European laws, in particular if the freedom of establishment is restricted disproportionally.

The court states the German regulation constitutes a restriction (paragraph 24) and justifies it as follows (paragraphs 28, 34):

Restrictions on those freedoms of movement may be justified by the objective of ensuring that the provision of medicinal products to the public is reliable and of good quality. [..]

The Member States [of the EU] may restrict the retail sale of medicinal products, in principle, to pharmacists alone, because of the safeguards which pharmacists must provide and the information which they must be in a position to furnish to consumers.

I agree that retail of drugs needs special education but why does the pharmacist have to own the pharmacy? Paragraphs 37 and 39:

It is undeniable that an operator having the status of pharmacist pursues [..] the objective of making a profit. However, as a pharmacist by profession, he is presumed to operate the pharmacy not with a purely economic objective, but also from a professional viewpoint. His private interest connected with the making of a profit is thus tempered by his training, by his professional experience and by the responsibility which he owes, given that any breach of the rules of law or professional conduct undermines not only the value of his investment but also his own professional existence. [..]

The operation of a pharmacy by a non-pharmacist may represent a risk to public health, in particular to the reliability and quality of the supply of medicinal products at retail level, because the pursuit of profit in the course of such operation does not involve [such] moderating factors.

This means a pharmacist owning the pharmacy is more ethically responsible than an employed pharmacist and his/her manager? Besides being questionable the assessment would justify similar regulations for any profession with responsibility for other people's life. Wouldn't the same apply to doctors employed in hospitals?

And don't forget the pharmacist can own up to 4 pharmacies. Obviously he or she can't be in all branches at the same time but needs employed pharmacists to operate the other branches. With the pharmacist being responsible for the branches' operation (paragraph 49):

Those branches are thus also presumed to be operated from a professional viewpoint, the private interest connected with the making of a profit being tempered to the same extent as in the case of the operation of pharmacies which are not branches.

The same can easily be achieved with less extensive restrictions. It should be easy to revoke an operating license for all branches from a company if there were a reason just as it is done now with the pharmacist.

This is topped by another justification for the regulation (paragraph 33):

Overconsumption or incorrect use of medicinal products leads, moreover, to a waste of financial resources which is all the more damaging because the pharmaceutical sector generates considerable costs and must satisfy increasing needs, while the financial resources which may be made available for healthcare are not unlimited, whatever the mode of funding applied. There is a direct link between those financial resources and the profits of businesses operating in the pharmaceutical sector because in most Member States [of the EU] the prescription of medicinal products is borne financially by the health insurance bodies concerned.

Pharmacy chains would have stronger buying power and could so negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry. According to an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (German; article itself is not available online, but appeared in the issue 115/2009, May 20, page 21) the prices fell significantly in countries like Norway after opening the drug markets.

The reasoning of the court is pretty lame. The arguments might have been provided by pharmacists associations. Many countries have deregulated pharmaceutical markets - and I haven't heard of any indication of jeopardized patient care. In contrary, the monopolistic market rather avoids competition in quality (German) according to experts in health care. The pharmacists have to be congratulated for their good lobbying work. Of course they have no interest in competition. The pharmaceutical industry has no interest in stronger negotiators. The politicians have no interest to approach such a sensitive topic, especially before this year's election. They rather repeat the pharmacists' arguments (German). At the end it's the people who have to bear the high costs of public health care.

By the way, most of the people involved in the discussions are not affected by the costs for public health care. What I consider one of the worst provisions in the German health care system is that people with a high income (lower limit is € 48,600 in 2009) can choose a private insurance rather than the statutory insurance - with the obvious effect of lower income people having to bear the burden of public health care. So while Germany might have one of the best health care systems there is definitely lots of room for improvement.

Who watches the watchers?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The question has been asked since more than 2,000 years and translates to "Who will guard the guards?" In developed democracies the risk of abusing military power is rather low; people would not accept it and it's questionable if the army would fire on their own people. The means are more subtle nowadays and an overhauled translation is more appropriate: "Who watches the watchers?"

The threats to democratic states and societies are no longer foreign armies (except maybe for India and Israel and despite Cold War rhetoric during last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia) but terrorism and organized crime. In the last years they often had to serve as reason for undermining civil rights, e.g. with the USA PATRIOT Act.

In the latest installment German government or more exact federal police Bundeskriminalamt BKA signed contracts (German) with major internet service providers to block access to child porn sites, the law is still due. Nobody reasonable will argue against fighting child pornography, but what is currently discussed is more than questionable. There are 3 major points of criticism: relevance, effectiveness, appropriateness.

Relevance

A special investigator of Lower Saxony's state police says (German) the internet is used for communication, but commercial distribution happens via classic mail. Only later on material is distributed via P2P or Usenet - for free. So it will hardly prevent any production of child pornography since it does not dry out the cash flow.

Effectiveness

Different techniques are possible: manipulating DNS, filtering by IP or filtering by URL. The first one seems to be the means of choice - and is totally pointless. Scandinavian countries are using DNS manipulation. Minister of Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen, who is actually pursuing the access blocking, claims 50,000 clicks are prevented (German) in Sweden every day while the CEO of Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft (German Internet Business Association) eco claims that most "clicks" are caused by search engines (German). Both statements can't be proven but the Swedish chief inspector against child pornography and child abuse concludes (German):

Our blocking measures don't help to reduce the production of pornography.

IP filtering can't be bypassed that easily, it needs for example a proxy server. More important is the potential collateral damage: Behind one IP address can be many web sites. URL filtering can also be bypassed via a proxy server, but it does not have the side effects of IP filtering. Checking every URL costs enormous resources though and is not feasible. Therefore the British use a combined approach of IP and URL filtering in their Cleanfeed system to reduce collateral damage and necessary resources - which doesn't always work out as we will see later on.

Appropriateness

An expertise released (both German) by the Research Services (Wissenschaftliche Dienste) of the German parliament Bundestag states that the blockade imperils the freedom of communication as granted by the German constitution. The Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries expressed concerns (German) about "major constitutional risks" - her ministry was not involved in the process.

The most critical point is the lack of control. It's the BKA compiling the blocking list, it has (obviously) to be kept secret and nobody can control what is on the list. And what happens if the objectionable contents were removed? I'm not suggesting that anybody is trying to introduce censorship since I'm just not a supporter of any conspiracy theory. But the infrastructure for censorship is created and it can be abused in the future with less noble intentions.

To make matters worse police is prosecuting people publishing leaked lists. After WikiLeaks released the lists of Australia, Thailand or Denmark the house of German domain owner was searched (German) for "distributing child pornographic material". Also the house search of - take a breath - a blogger who linked in his blog to another blog which linked WikiLeaks with the lists was ruled to be legal (German)! This example also points to another risk of those lists in case they are published: They help to distribute child pornography by providing link collections. To make it clear: In my opinion that's not a justification to prosecute publishers of those lists but a reason to not create them.

Other side-effects

Related to the lack of control is the question which links get on the list: End of last year Britain's Internet Watch Foundation ruled about the cover of the album Virgin Killer by German band Scorpions:

As with all child sexual abuse reports received by our hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council. The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18.

The album was released in 1976 (!) and its cover has never been censored in the UK. It also used to be available on Amazon or other sites. After few days IWF rescinded the block. During the block British users could not access the page on the album (but the image by accessing the URL directly) and not modify any Wikipedia page.

The Australian list (of which it wasn't quite clear whether it is a fake or not) contained a dentist's website after it had been hacked, and artistic photographs by Bill Henson. Australian Communication Minister Stephen Conroy admitted they were added to the blacklist in error. But since people make errors who is controlling them?

Another critic is CareChild, a society to fight distribution of child pornography and child abuse, calling the plan of Minister of Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen "symbolical politics" (German) promoting the distribution rather than fighting it. To prove their point they performed a test (both German) with 20 domains from the Danish list, 17 hosted in the U.S., 1 in England, 1 in the Netherlands and 1 in South Korea and Portugal (all different providers). Within hours 16 domains were switched off, the other 4 were determined to be according to the laws and the operators could provide necessary "record keeping documents", i.e. proving the age of the performers.

Quoting the Chaos Computer Club:

A statistical analysis of filter lists (German) from Switzerland, Denmark, Finland and Sweden revealed that more than 96% of the servers they banned are located in western countries, particularly the USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. It is quite implausible that these servers and their operators cannot be shut down and prosecuted by means of international cooperation by law enforcement authorities. There is clearly a lack of political will here to establish appropriate priorities and to make the necessary resources available.

Both CareChild and CCC conclude that the blocking lists might encourage law enforcement agencies to simply put web sites on those lists rather than actually taking actions against their operators.

So in my humble opinion the blocking lists are not only questionable in pretty much every manner. When potentially illegal content is getting on those lists and nobody is allowed to control them they are also dangerous to the fundamentals of democracy with their lack of oversight. Read: Who watches the watchers? As I wrote I don't suggest anybody wants to introduce censorship. But with this populist acting for the sake of it the infrastructure for censorship is created. I don't want to rely on Plato's noble lie but not even provide the possibility to misuse.

PS: FoeBuD is starting an unfiltered DNS server (German) at 85.214.73.63.

Scrap the Scrapping Bonus!

Unfortunately, the most successful means in the German economic stimulus package is going to have the worst consequences: the Abwrackprämie or scrapping bonus. Pretty much everybody knows it but this does not prevent the nonsense.

I already mentioned it in another post: Owners of cars that are older than 9 years can scrap their car, buy a new one (or a Jahreswagen: usually former company cars, less than 1 year old) and get a refund of €2,500. By today, only 2 months after announcing the program more than 585,000 applications (German, March 31, 2009) have been made. Originally the program was limited to €1,5 billions or 600,000 applications, so it has pretty much been used up. Now German government wants to extend the program until the end of the year - and waste even more money!

First point of criticism is that it hardly helps German car industry: only 36.7% of the new cars are from manufacturers producing in Germany - a rather short-sighted protective thought. In a globalized economy Germany would not only profit from car sales but also for example from machines used to build cars. Germany is still the world's biggest exporter (soon to be passed by China though). With Europe the connections are even closer, so it's really in Germany's interest to help other economies a well.

Second point is the official name Umweltprämie or environmental bonus. The only problem: There is NO environmental incentive to it, nothing about consumption, nothing about emissions and nothing about the size of the cars. Only hope is reduced consumption of newer cars. Neither in media nor by politicians it's called Umweltprämie anymore.

Third and most important point is the economical nonsense. In times of the worst crisis since WWII small car sales are at record levels. Opel - the nearly bankrupt subsidiary of GM - sold 60% more cars (German) in the first 3 quarters than in the same term of last year. Not only common sense but also historical examples show that the great success is only early demand, yet another bubble - cars that are bought now will obviously not be bought in 9 months. The sharper the plunge will be by then. The car industry needs to reduce its overcapacity (German) nevertheless.

But that's not the only distortion in the market: Now there is obviously an oversupply of scrap metal (German) while the market of cheap used cars is wiped out to a large extent. People having bought a car can't spend the money on other things anymore, let's say furniture, so other industries are compromised as well.

Remaining question is why the absurd show has to go on. I have only one explanation, the upcoming elections in September:

Chancellor Merkel is likely to renew the indirect subsidy program -- which is as popular as it is imperfect -- out of fears of a voter revolt.

Just to be exact it's not Merkel, but the whole government with both major parties CDU/CSU and SPD in the Grand coalition.

There must be at least 2 major changes to the program: Scrap the scrapping part and pay the bonus only as tax reduction for environmentally friendly cars with a CO2 output of 140mg/km or even lower. Then it would at least deserve its name Umweltprämie. This could simply have been done as part of the vehicle tax reform.

Fast Money

What's the media's role in the economy crisis? It's hard to tell and Jon Stewart probably didn't want to provide an in-depth analysis, eventually he is still running a comedy show. It was following rant by Rick Santelli:

How about this, President new administration, why don't you put up a web site to have people vote on the internet as a referendum to see if we really wanna subsidize the loser's mortgages. [..] This is America. How many of you people wanna pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise the hand! President Obama, are you listening?

that indicted Jon Stewart to have a closer look on poor judgment - not of the homeowners but of the financial experts of CNBC (March 4, 2009):



Less than a week later there was a follow-up (March 9, 2009):



Since the last one particularly picked on Jim Cramer the media made a War of Words between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer out of it - yet another example on how media works. Remember, Stewart's primary intention was to expose CNBC's financial expert's judgment compared to the losers with their mortgages...

Eventually, Cramer gave in and came to the show 3 days later - and he was pretty much torn limb from limb. This is the unedited interview of March 12, 2009, part I:



Unedited interview of March 12, 2009, part II:



Unedited interview of March 12, 2009, part III:



Yeah, the interview wasn't quite fair, Stewart wanted to smash Cramer, he made him look like a fool and Cramer had hardly any chance to defend. I think it's a great piece of not only entertainment though, Stewart has many points. He is not really blaming media (or CNBC in particular) as reason for the financial crisis but as another piece of the puzzle. And it was only Santelli's blatant remark that increased the height of fall and made it actually interesting for Stewart.

Cui Bono

Just as in the UK (BBC) or in the US (PBS) Germany also has public broadcasting services. (Commercial broadcasting only exists since 25 years in Germany.) The idea is to provide objective quality news and information, as far as possible free from particular political and economical interests.

There are 2 ways of funding: commercials/sponsoring and fees. While separating the public interest in independent news and information from commercial interests of publishers works pretty well for newspapers the approach has been questioned repeatedly for TV stations in the last years, especially in form of Schleichwerbung or product placement.

The fees are collected by an independent authority called GEZ ("Gebühreneinzugszentrale der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", “fee collection centre of public-law broadcasting institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany") from every owner of a TV, a radio or (since 2007) even a PC with internet access. The major problem with GEZ is its huge data collection: Whenever somebody moves and registers in the new town the GEZ gets the new address. Furthermore, the GEZ relies on address providers which ends in absurd examples of bureaucracy, when pets get billed or dead people like the famous mathematician Adam Ries whose 450th anniversary of obit is tomorrow.

The model has the advantage of no political influence though. It's only that the commercial influence should also be reduced by not allowing any commercials or sponsoring. This would mean an increase of the fee of less than 10 percent which is more than worth it.

Another massive influence raised my attention lately: Conservative politicians try to prevent that the contract of the chief editor of the Second German TV Channel (ZDF) Nikolaus Brender is renewed. The conservatives have the majority in the governing board of the channel. This raises the first question: Why has any politician influence on the program?

Second question is why they want to prevent Nikolaus Brender. Hesse prime minister Roland Koch started to justify his objection with the reduced numbers of viewers of ZDF news programs - which only applies to all news programs in German TV. In my opinion viewer numbers must not be a primary measurement for quality news - or we end up with yellow press news. That's why public broadcasting should not have a commercial interest with viewer numbers determining the earnings from commercials.

With the argument rebutted Koch switched to criticize Brender's personnel management - obviously this is hard to judge from outside. The ZDF director Markus Schächter wants to keep him though and a lot of prominent journalists of ZDF are supporting him in an open letter objecting the political influence.

Commentators rather think that Brender is simply too independent for the conservative understanding. Vacancies are filled based on qualifications and no longer based on the political camp which raises journalistic excellence. Besides, Brender just won the Hanns-Joachim Friedrichs Price for TV Journalism this week (which of course might just have been a choice to support him as well). Hanns-Joachim Friedrichs most famous quote is:

Einen guten Journalisten erkennt man daran, dass er sich nicht gemein macht mit einer Sache, auch nicht mit einer guten.
-- A good journalist doesn't allow himself to be taken in by any cause, not even a good one.

A news channel can not be measured by its audience and so the points of criticism by the conservatives are invalid. From pretty much every side Brender is supported for his quality journalism which should be the main motive of a chief editor in public broadcasting. Eventually Roland Koch is doing more damage by pursuing political influence to the ZDF than any editor could ever do - or as CEO of Axel Springer newspaper group puts it in the context of the government bailing out news organizations:

To put it in exaggerated terms, even a bankrupt media company is better than one that is funded and controlled by the government. The ZDF is a prime example of what happens when politicians try to appoint editors-in-chief.

This is not yet the end: Brender is not allowed to defend himself in front of the governing board. And to top that, former Bavarian prime minister Edmund Stoiber, also member of the governing board, claims the director of ZDF should take disciplinary actions against all journalists who supported Brender signing the open letter!

Pork-Barrel Politics

Recently I wrote about the problems of European dairy farmers. Today I had to read about an approach of German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner (with support from Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia) trying to stop the necessary market shakeout by postponing the lift of the EU milk quotas. Aigner is from Bavaria - and dairy farming is a key sector in Bavaria and especially its small farms will be hit hard. Luckily the approach was turned down. From the EU stimulus package €90 millions will be spent in Germany for rural development though. Aigner wants to give the money to the farmers. I hope the money is not simply thrown out the window...

In another example the president of the association of German automobile industry (VDA) claims to take back (German) the raise in truck toll on German autobahn from beginning of this year. This is supposed to help German transport agencies with foreign competitors. I just wonder how since it would affect all trucks on German streets. Also the idea was to bring transportation from streets to rails, i.e. it was a means of environmental policy. Why should this be stopped now? Because of a market shakeout? That's a desired effect! So far government says no (German) but the automobile industry is one of the strongest lobbying groups in Germany so I'm not sure how long this still stands.

Have in mind the government is currently already wasting €1.5 billions as part of the stimulus program for car sales in form of a scrapping scheme: For scrapping a 9-year old car and buying a new one you get €2,500 from the government. In times of the worst crisis car registrations in February were at a 10-year high! Imagine the plunge when the money for the scrapping scheme is running out:

Critics of scrapping schemes point out that they are like administering a shot of adrenaline to a sick patient — first there's a rally, then there's a collapse. [..] Christian Streiff, boss of France's PSA Peugeot Citroën, warned such incentive schemes have an "inverse effect" — they essentially guarantee an implosion in the market once the subsidies stop.

And also just of today another example: Last year there were major data-protection scandals in Germany, not to talk about illegal surveillance of employees in a bunch of companies like Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Telekom, Lufthansa or Lidl. All of a sudden all politicians wanted to protected customer's and worker's privacy. That's long gone. The most important point, an explicit opt-in on transfer of customer data to other companies, is now discussed again. Since it might cost jobs I don't think this rule will make it into law.

The Incomprehensible

One of my first thoughts on the latest school killing in Germany was slightly cynical: How long will it take that "Killerspiele" (First person shooters are condemned sweepingly (German) as "killer games" in Germany.) are indicated - once again - as a reason for the killing? It took only one day.

Hardly anybody will actually say these games are a reason but simply the fact that only one day after the shooting the police discloses (German) they found Counter-Strike on the killer's computer and the repeated claim for bans of those games reveal the reasoning. Why is that?

Putting the numbers in context: In the U.S. in 2005 it had 16,692 homicides, 11,346 by guns. That means statistically 46 people were murdered every day, 31 by guns. The deadliest school shooting (Virginia Tech massacre) took the life of 33 people. And how many people die in "family tragedies" (German euphemism (German) for homicides within the family, usually with suicide of the perpetrator) every year as just recently (both German)?

But nothing causes as much sensation - and claim for actions - as the school killings. Is it the sheer number of victims? I think it is rather the impossibility to comprehend the incomprehensible, the idea of somebody causing as much damage as possible before committing suicide, the question how nobody could have noticed the gunman's psychological strain. A murder with robbery happens out of greed, a family killing out of jealousy or despair, they are "explainable" - a school killing, in both its extent and randomization of victims, can not be explained with a single reason though, if at all.

But then why do people look for simple solutions? Is it the only thing to hold on to? Some examples:

• The ban on (German) "killer games" is a classic. First person shooters are usually approved for people of age 16 in Germany if they are diluted (e.g. no showing of blood). Otherwise they must be only sold to adults. Minister of Family Affairs proposed test purchases to control shops stick to the law. One chain completely stopped selling of games with 18-plus ratings.


• Controls in rifle clubs are rather new. It's only that 1.5 million people are organized in the parent organization Deutscher Schützenbund. Should everyone provide a psychological assessment?


• Chancellor Angela Merkel even thought out loud about unannounced controls for weapon owners. Without any concrete reasons how is that consistent with the Grundgesetz (German constitution, basic law), not talking about sheer practicability?


• A more reasonable idea is the separate storage of weapons and ammunition (the quote from Handelsblatt), others propose a limit on the number of weapons (German), even more unlikely is the total prohibition of keeping weapons at home (Where should they be kept?).

One of the saddest proposals is the one for swipe cards, metal detectors and security guards (see the quote from Die Welt) at schools. This will turn schools into prisons:

[Schools] shouldn't be turned into bunkers, and they can't be turned into fortresses without their ability to teach suffering. After the murders in Winnenden, it's understandable that people would start discussing things like swipecards and metal detectors. But there is no such thing as absolute security, and every added bit of preventative technology brings with it the danger of making people feel even more vulnerable. If you go into one of the schools in the United States that has been outfitted to become a high-security facility, you feel anything but safe and secure. Instead, you feel completely lost at sea.

All the proposals have some things in common: The effectiveness is at least questionable. Germany has already one of the tightest weapons law in Europe if not the world. Similar the regulations on video games or films. And then there is always the black market to get either video games or weapons and ammunition.

And second all the proposals only address symptoms, not the causes. No video game (World Of Bullshit, German) has ever caused a school shooting. The membership in rifle clubs might actually provide acceptance though I would argue if anybody needs to learn how to shoot except for security services as police or military.

But what about the perpetrator, not Tim K. in particular but in general. What about personal responsibility of people associated with such killers? What about parents allowing their children to play the games (or not knowing it)? In analogy to the proposals above why does nobody think about testing parents whether they qualify for raising children? What about teachers, classmates, coaches, friends? What about the selective German school system? Will psychological counselors help to find precarious "candidates"?

These questions shall illustrate the complexity of the problem where easy solutions just don't work - and question the mentioned proposals even stronger. The bottom line is: We are living in a free society. There is and will never be 100 percent security. As hard as it might be to accept, especially because of their senselessness: School shootings are rare. Giving up freedoms for questionable means can't be the solution. Neither can just going on - but that's exactly what simple solutions tend to. It's in everybody's responsibility to take care. Sounds naive? Maybe it is but the government simply can't help and is not supposed to help. If society does not change on its own accord we just have to live - with the incomprehensible.

Let Market Fix It!

Last week I saw the documentary Let's Make Money in cinema. Despite some awkward conspiracy theory tendencies it shows some really interesting examples of globalization gone wrong. One of it is cotton production in Burkina Faso, one of the poorest countries in the world. Not long ago I also posted about an approach to help German farmers called "Ein Herz für Erzeuger" or in English "A Heart for Producers" which I consider totally wrong.

Now how are the two stories linked with each other? It's as easy as that: Due to globalized markets paying huge subsidies to European and American farmers does not only distort the local markets but has effects on the markets in the whole world. And just as with the milk seas the cotton subsidies lead to over-production and an extremely low price for cotton. According to the film's website the US spend $3 to 4 billions on cotton subsidies (German) per year. This costs Burkina Faso around $150 millions per year while they get only a fourth of it as development aid - from the US, EU and Japan together! (The EU isn't better of course: Cotton in Spain is subsidized with $1 billion per year as well.)

This means the most severe problems in the developing countries (or emerging markets as they are called now as one episode in the film shows) could be fixed just by opening markets in the EU and the US - without any additional payments in form of development aid. Surprisingly, this is capitalism in pure form, simply following the maxim of market fixing itself. I understand this doesn't make it easier to pursue in the EU but what about the US!? Next time somebody complains about Big Government (in both the EU or the US) I suggest to get rid off agricultural subsidies. But wait, it might just be the same people complaining about Big Government and getting elected by farmers...

PS: Some amounts I converted from Euro to US Dollar at current rate of 1 Euro = 1.30 US Dollar.

PPS: The film also has an episode on Cross Border Leasings (German) I wrote about recently as well.

Good News for People Who Love Bad News

If you haven't lived hermetically the last year you couldn't have missed it: There is a crisis going on. Hardly anybody doubts it is worse than anything else since WWII. I was impressed though that the same experts that hadn't seen the crisis coming wanted to tell us how bad it's going to be. Starting in October, when the crisis was still a financial crisis, not yet an economical one in Germany (Germany's unemployment rate was the lowest in 16 years) following predictions have been made for the economical growth/ downturn in Germany:

15.10.2008, German government: 0.2 percent.
03.11.2008, EU commission: 0.0 percent.
06.11.2008, IWF: -0.8 percent.
25.11.2008, OECD: -0.9 percent.
05.12.2008, German federal bank: -0.8 percent.
05.12.2008, Deutsche Bank: -4 percent.
10.12.2008, RWI: -2 percent.
11.12.2008, IFO: -2.2 percent.
22.12.2008, IfW: - 2.7 percent.
19.01.2009, EU commission: -2.3 percent.
21.01.2009, German government: -2.25 percent.
28.01.2009, IWF: -2.5 percent.
23.02.2009, Deutsche Bank: -5 percent.

It is like a competition on who makes the worst prediction. I seriously wonder whom are all the bad news supposed to help. Or to say it with German comedian Dieter Nuhr:

Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten.

(More polite translation: If you don't have a clue, shut up!)

But there have actually been some good news like unexpected increases in certain indexes based on people's expectations for the future. It's just that the economic institutes don't seem to trust their own surveys. And a report about Germany's export growth in 2008 reads: Export growth is lowest in 5 years! That's how a good news (growth!) is turned into a bad news. And I've always been thinking economy is so much about psychological effects. So shouldn't we interpret every ray of hope as a positive sign rather than turning it down!? I would really like to know if this is a special German mentality issue or if there is the same phenomenon in other parts of the world as well.

Business Opportunity

Today I want to tell you a short story. Imagine I have a car. It doesn't matter if it is an old one, a fast or a cool one. I have a car. Now there is another person taking a look at my car. Following dialogue gets started:
He: "You have a nice car! Can I lease it from you?"
Me: "But then I don't have a car anymore."
He: "That's not a problem. I will lease it out to you immediately."
Ring! Ring! Ring! Alarm! Sounds suspicious.
Me: "What's the point of it!?"
He: "Wait, it's even better. I will you pay you money for this business!"
Ring! Ring! Ring! (Was that an alarm ring or the money sign in my eyes?)
He: "Yes! We are investors, the leasing rates are our investment and so they are tax deductible. We will just give you part of the tax reduction in advance."

Now replace me with German municipalities, the other person with American investors and the car with municipal facilities and services like incineration or sewage plants and you get so-called Cross Border Leasings (German). The article says around 150 contracts have been concluded over 30 to 80 billion Euros.

On the second ring I (smart-ass me, not the supposed me from above) would have asked pathetically if this isn't fraud - if not legally (obviously there was a loophole) then morally. A court in Cleveland, Ohio ruled in one case (Case No. 1:07-CV-857) last year that the tax saving has to be paid back by the investor - at least.

But now the German municipalities are left behind with these financial constructs and the problems they cause. They were backed by the now infamous Collateralized Debt Obligations which are nothing worth anymore (if they were ever) - and the German municipalities have to take all the risks and pay for possible losses.

This is economical growth simply based on the flow of money. Even better, the money wasn't actually flowing except for the initial payment. The investors borrowed the money from the same bank the German municipality had to pay the leasing rate to. And the investors did not have access to the money but it was used to pay their leasing rates. So it was simply moving money from one account to another, fictitious transactions which I consider fraud at the expense of American and German taxpayers.

One final point to add: The article only points finger at the German politicians for taking such high risks rather than questioning the approach because of the moral issues. Since moral obviously doesn't pay off and you can't charge somebody for irresponsibility politicians should finally be liable for their actions in office. They would think more than twice about such high-risk transactions.

Disclaimer: If I have oversimplified the case and there is economical sense in such a transaction I would really like to hear it. Feel free to contact me!

A Heart for Producers

Last week I had to try hard to keep from laughing. I was shopping for grocery and saw a new campaign: Ein Herz für Erzeuger (A Heart for Producers). The idea: Rather than spending 49 cents on a liter of milk you pay 59 cents and the additional 10 cents go completely to the farmer. This is ridiculous in many ways!

In Germany there is both a charity campaign Ein Herz für Kinder (A Heart for Children) for needy children and a magazine Ein Herz für Tiere (A Heart for Animals respectively Pets). And now needy farmers? So first it's simply a ridiculous name from a marketing perspective - or am I the only one who thinks first of a donation account when hearing this campaign name?

Second, why should I pay more for the same product? For my good nature or my conscience? I'm sorry, but this is the same milk from the same intensive livestock farming where cattle is fed with the same antibiotics! Isn't it understandable I don't feel sympathy for this kind of farming? If I want to have a better product for which I'm willing to pay more I'll get organic milk.

Third, I'm not denying that many farmers, especially small businesses, have major problems with the low milk price and their costs. But the problem is far more complex (German) - and needs painful consequences. For years the market for milk was totally regulated (just like every other agricultural product in the EU) by setting quota how much a farm can produce. This led to the infamous so-called milk seas or butter hills - products produced beyond the market's needs, bought with huge subsidies by the EU and destroyed or fed to livestock.

Now the quota system is going to be removed - and the market will fix the distortions caused by the regulations: The price will likely drop due to the oversupply. Some farms might switch to the production of organic food which gives them higher income per unit (a liter of organic milk costs 89 cents). But there will definitely be individual fates, especially small farms, that will have to shut due to reduced income. But it is not possible to work against the market or it will cost an enormous amount of money. It makes more sense economically to spent the money otherwise despite the costs for social benefits or other support for the victims of this change. Only one thing is sure: The 10 cents can't prevent that change. If at all it will extend the agony.

Top 10 Albums 2008

2008, the year of Chinese Democracy is over. Unfortunately, neither the one nor the other worked out. I don't even want to append as expected because I can hardly imagine anybody was actually expecting anything. And all the hope for 2008 was already used up.

Anyways, in 2008 I bought again around 40 CDs, most of them within the last days of my trip to Philadelphia because CDs are so much cheaper in the US than in Germany - and that's not only due to the Euro exchange rate. So I only influenced the US Amazon 2008 charts, but not the German one. Maybe that's why not even one of my personal Top 10 made it into the latter :-)

And what does it tell you about the year 2008 in music (or the people buying music) if the first 3 places are taken by albums from 2006 and 2007? I found some great CDs though and here it is, my personal Top 10:

1. The Walkmen - You & Me


2. Gus Black - Today Is Not The Day...


3. Rainald Grebe - 1968


4. MGMT - Oracular Spectacular


5. Kings Of Leon - Only By The Night


6. Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes


7. Sun Kil Moon - April


8. Vampire Weekend - Vampire Weekend


9. The Mountain Goats - Heretic Pride


10. Randy Newman - Harps And Angels

Most surprisingly there is a German album on the list. I can't remember when the last one was even close to that. But '1968' by Rainald Grebe is so amazingly sarcastic - I'm still laughing whenever I listen to it. As a sample his performance in German satirical TV show Neues aus der Anstalt: Der Präsident.

Most of the other 12 songs are even better, but this one fits Germany's Presidential elections this year. Since the president doesn't have actual power in Germany (that's also what the song is about) the parliamentary elections at the end of September are more interesting. Though German democracy isn't actually endangered let's see what uses up our hopes this year :-)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Reading an article about Angela Merkel reminded me of finishing my classification of politicians which I have in my drawer since quite some time: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Don't ask me why but somehow this movie title came to my mind. More serious it's the programmatic, the ideologist and the opportunist. Of course this classification isn't scientific at all, I just made it up during last year's US election campaign.

Let's start with the ideologist, the obvious example is George W. Bush. His 2 terms can be characterized by the ideology of the everlasting fight of Good vs. Evil. Unfortunately, for pursuing his goal of spreading democracy especially in the Middle East to "build a safer world" he regarded every means as justified - including those I consider to be preserved for the Evil:

Those methods, including the use of stress positions and forced nudity, continued to spread through the military detention system, and their use “damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

Not talking about all the problems that got out of focus, ignored and grew into crises on their own. Even looking back Bush shows hardly any sign of regret (and even less does Vice President Dick Cheney). I consider that very typical for people blinded by ideology.

The second characterization is opportunist. There is no ideology he blindly sticks to, but the lack of leadership and predictability is also the problem in these times of crisis - just as with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

She put together a rescue package for banks that so far hasn't had much effect. She has come up with an economic stimulus package that may not be enough. She hasn't made a single major speech. There is no sign of a claim to leadership, whether in Germany, Europe or the world.

Former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party describes her style in an interview as follows:

Until now, if opinion polls are anything to judge by, this approach has served her well. She always takes positions that allow her to maintain a majority. However, in this global crisis, that is simply the wrong attitude. What is needed now is strategic, large-scale planning -- in the European spirit.

A more recent article is even more excoriating:

A major crisis actually presents an opportunity for a chancellor. Everyone is at a loss, everyone is plagued by uncertainty, and virtually everyone is waiting for someone to take charge. And what has Merkel done? She has joined those who are waiting. She has become the leader of the waiting game. [..] What counts for her is that she has a result. It doesn't matter what it is. It is typical of a chancellorship that searches for harmony but lacks leadership.

Of course her behavior could be interpreted simply as cautious - if she just wouldn't change her opinion too often. Not long ago environment was an important topic for the former Minister of Environment:

Chancellor Angela Merkel has gone out of her way to show herself as a climate saviour. In August 2007, she had herself photographed on a block of ice in Greenland in order to draw attention to the consequences of climate change. Just a short time before she helped to negotiate a global climate "roadmap" at the G-8 summit in Germany.

Now that's no longer valid since it might cost jobs? This argument sounds very familiar, just like the failed strategy of the US economy, in particular car industry. If only many experts would not see green technologies as a chance to create thousands of jobs. In my opinion she endangers Germany's leading position in environmental technologies and so jobs in the long run.

Or the economic crisis:

The chancellor seemed unsure of herself when it came to preventing the impending collapse of the banking system. [..] First she touted an international solution before eventually bowing to pressure from German banks and agreeing to a coordinated European approach. [..] Merkel also flip flopped when it came to the political consequences of the economic downturn. At first, her office announced that she and Steinbrück had agreed to bring forward a plan to make health insurance premiums tax-deductible. But then she dropped the plan when it came in for sharp criticism.

Sure, she is still by far preferable to French Omni-President Nicolas Sarkozy with his aimless actions for the sake of acting. But I'd like to know what she is actually up to.

Somewhere in the middle is the programmatic, with a general plan laying out the base for the politics, an idea, but not blindly sticking to it like an ideology. The means are chosen as the cases arise but according to the greater plan. For being successful this needs good judgment and a strong team of experts - and a strong leader for this team.

My hope is that the new US President Barack Obama will fulfill this role. So far he has laid out the general guideline in his speeches: being a president for all US Americans, no matter what descent, what religion, what region or walk of life. The speech in Berlin showed that he doesn't intend to limit the guideline to the US, but also apply them internationally.

He has also chosen his team of experts for which he received praise from left and right (actually more from right since the lefts are kind of disappointed he didn't choose more radical candidates). He now has to prove his judgment and his leadership of this alleged team of rivals.

As little scientific my classification is as blurred are the borders between the groups. Bush was forced by the "circumstances" aka economic crisis to give up the neoconservative ideology and rather spend a whole lot of money to bail out banks - which just underlines his failure even more. A weak leader will switch from his program to opinion polls as guideline of his politics just when leadership and guidance is needed the most. (That is what I think actually happened with Angela Merkel.)

The last 2 months were a lame duck season not only in the US but also in Germany if not Europe. Everybody seemed to wait for the inauguration of Barack Obama. Now Obama made an impressive start. Let's see how it is going to work out.

Update: There is a new article on Angela Merkel's failure:

[..] A chancellor without a compass, a head of government without authority and a party leader who lacks the support of her own people.