Great article, thank you Adam. One thing that also might be worth mentioning is the various legal challenges being made against this scandalous move to use the old bundestag to rail through a profoundly contrversial action, the most interesting of which seems to be a requirement of the consitution that a two week period is requied between the frst and second readings of a new bill. Currently the CDU/SPD programme foresees a 5 day period only (13 - 15 March).
In some ways, increased investment in infrastructure will green the economy indirectly, as today's infrastructure technology is (much) greener than whatever is replaced (I assume infrastructure here means housing, transportation, and energy production and distribution). Also, increased defence spending will mitigate the electrification of the car industry, as much of the old supply chain can be retooled for defence purposes, smoothing the transition. But yes, there needs to be a green aspect of the investment (energy security through investments in heat pumps, renewable energy and so on). The Greens would be wise to demand subsidies to sweeten regulatory and security pressures towards decarbonisation.
Adam, My understanding is that when the US Treasury or similar body sells debt to the banking system (creates an asset) to pay bills (putting liabilities in the banking system) that it gives the financial system the money to buy the debt with. I.e., it lends to the public and borrows from the public simultaneously. The government also gives the public the money that the public will use to pay its taxes with. This is the Warren Mosler view, to which I ascribe. There's a parallel system in the banks: there is currently $18 trillion in bank credit outstanding, yet to be paid back to banks and cancelled. That number, like the federal debt, only moves up, never down.
That is correct for the US -- in the Euro Zone the ECB isn't a creature of the Bundestag in the same way that the US Federal Reserve is of the US Congress.
This is very sensible. But we have seen how German Greens have underwent a massive transformation since 1980 (not the 360 degrees turn that Analena Bspoke about) and have become uberhawkish in their approach to war and Russia. Analena considers that Germany is at war with Russia and that the Ukrainian interests should come before that of German people, her constituency. So, there are good chances that the lame parliament might vote on the debt limit...
I fully agree that, from a democratic point of view, initiating a constitutional reform with an outdated parliament is not acceptable. That trap was made by López Obrador in Mexico a few months ago to undermine the judiciary. But I don't understand why you see this move as a trap against the Greens if it was Robert Habeck himself who proposed it. By the way, I don't think Habeck will be in the new Bundestag because he didn't win his seat.
"Faced with the CDU-SPD proposal one has to ask, is Russia really a more serious threat to the security of Germans than the global climate crisis or the fact that an alarmingly large share of children in Germany grow up in poverty?"
Yes, it absolutely is, a far more acute and terrifying threat. One look at the destruction and murder taking place in Ukraine will confirm this. Putin's goal is to conquer Eastern Europe, and recent developments have opened the way. If he sees the slightest chance of success, he will attack, and his army will murder and rape across its conquests, destroying what remains of the rule of law and democracy it can find.
Now, even in the event of a massive Russian attack on the EU, Germany itself is unlikely to suffer much military damage. There may be drone and missile strikes, but there won't be any fighting on its territory, it won't have to fear conquest by the Russians.
Does that mean Germany can afford to stand by and do nothing? Absolutely not. First, to do so would be a betrayal. Nations like Estonia joined the EU and NATO under the promise of collective protection. Germany, given its history and its responsibility to uphold the European ideal, must stand firm in defending those who cannot defend themselves.
Second, from a purely geopolitical standpoint, even without direct occupation, a victorious Russia would hold Germany hostage. It would reduce it to a puppet state, constantly threatened with invasion.
Russia is already preparing for this war. The moment its campaign in Ukraine ends, all its resources will shift toward the next target. Our time is running out—it could be five years, three years, or even just a few months. This threat far outweighs climate change or child poverty because living under Russian attack and occupation is incomparably worse than either.
The single most urgent priority right now is building a military force capable of defending Europe. Anything less is an unaffordable gamble.
Then tell me, what you think what Bismarck would tell me?
I also do not know why the opinion of an authoritarian prussian noble who would abhorish the present free and democratic Germany and Europe should be relevant.
“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”
And it was Kaiser Wilhelm II's foolish dismissal of that "authoritarian prussian noble" which led to more than 125 years of geopolitical disaster for Germany. She desperately needs a man of his quality; come to think of it, Europe could use a Metternich right about now ...
For over 30 years, Germany has done everything possible to establish "good treaties" with Russia. It even overlooked several blatant Russian transgressions in an effort to maintain its approach. Yet, despite all German efforts, Wandel durch Handel has failed spectacularly.
The negotiations leading up to the Ukraine war made this abundantly clear. Putin deliberately presented demands that were impossible to meet. He has no interest in fair agreements—he seeks empire and dominion, and he is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. Reaching a good treaty with him without force is as impossible as it was with ideological fanatics like Hitler.
Really? Pretending to implement the Minsk Accords (according to Mutti's own admission) is having "done everything possible?"
And if your historical priors end at 1938, well, it's a recipe for an impoverished set of possibilities. I did mention Metternich for a reason -- maybe you can figure it out ...
Germany was an open and friendly partner of Russia until Russia broke all rules of conduct and showed that it had no interest in friendly cooperation. What reason could Russia have to invade a peaceful and sovereign Ukraine if not imperialist ambitions?
I didn't see much speculation of how the new public spending might ease the stark West/East divide in Germany, with the economic have-nots and far-right concentrated in the old East Germany. Nor much mention of how rearming Germany and the rest of Western Europe might heighten tension between Germany and Russia... especially if Zelenskyy falls and the Russian army flexes muscles along the Polish border... with an eye toward claiming Poland. I'm just a spectator, but grew up in the 50s and 60s, with "duck and cover" at school, etc. Germany re-arming? Not an altogether heartening development.
"with an eye toward claiming Poland". USSR didn't claim Poland after WWII. WHy would it want to do it now? Is there indication from the Russian sphere that Russia needs more territory? Where do these ideas even come from, what recesses of the mind. Asking for a friend...
Great article, thank you Adam. One thing that also might be worth mentioning is the various legal challenges being made against this scandalous move to use the old bundestag to rail through a profoundly contrversial action, the most interesting of which seems to be a requirement of the consitution that a two week period is requied between the frst and second readings of a new bill. Currently the CDU/SPD programme foresees a 5 day period only (13 - 15 March).
In some ways, increased investment in infrastructure will green the economy indirectly, as today's infrastructure technology is (much) greener than whatever is replaced (I assume infrastructure here means housing, transportation, and energy production and distribution). Also, increased defence spending will mitigate the electrification of the car industry, as much of the old supply chain can be retooled for defence purposes, smoothing the transition. But yes, there needs to be a green aspect of the investment (energy security through investments in heat pumps, renewable energy and so on). The Greens would be wise to demand subsidies to sweeten regulatory and security pressures towards decarbonisation.
Adam, My understanding is that when the US Treasury or similar body sells debt to the banking system (creates an asset) to pay bills (putting liabilities in the banking system) that it gives the financial system the money to buy the debt with. I.e., it lends to the public and borrows from the public simultaneously. The government also gives the public the money that the public will use to pay its taxes with. This is the Warren Mosler view, to which I ascribe. There's a parallel system in the banks: there is currently $18 trillion in bank credit outstanding, yet to be paid back to banks and cancelled. That number, like the federal debt, only moves up, never down.
That is correct for the US -- in the Euro Zone the ECB isn't a creature of the Bundestag in the same way that the US Federal Reserve is of the US Congress.
This is very sensible. But we have seen how German Greens have underwent a massive transformation since 1980 (not the 360 degrees turn that Analena Bspoke about) and have become uberhawkish in their approach to war and Russia. Analena considers that Germany is at war with Russia and that the Ukrainian interests should come before that of German people, her constituency. So, there are good chances that the lame parliament might vote on the debt limit...
I fully agree that, from a democratic point of view, initiating a constitutional reform with an outdated parliament is not acceptable. That trap was made by López Obrador in Mexico a few months ago to undermine the judiciary. But I don't understand why you see this move as a trap against the Greens if it was Robert Habeck himself who proposed it. By the way, I don't think Habeck will be in the new Bundestag because he didn't win his seat.
"Faced with the CDU-SPD proposal one has to ask, is Russia really a more serious threat to the security of Germans than the global climate crisis or the fact that an alarmingly large share of children in Germany grow up in poverty?"
Yes, it absolutely is, a far more acute and terrifying threat. One look at the destruction and murder taking place in Ukraine will confirm this. Putin's goal is to conquer Eastern Europe, and recent developments have opened the way. If he sees the slightest chance of success, he will attack, and his army will murder and rape across its conquests, destroying what remains of the rule of law and democracy it can find.
Now, even in the event of a massive Russian attack on the EU, Germany itself is unlikely to suffer much military damage. There may be drone and missile strikes, but there won't be any fighting on its territory, it won't have to fear conquest by the Russians.
Does that mean Germany can afford to stand by and do nothing? Absolutely not. First, to do so would be a betrayal. Nations like Estonia joined the EU and NATO under the promise of collective protection. Germany, given its history and its responsibility to uphold the European ideal, must stand firm in defending those who cannot defend themselves.
Second, from a purely geopolitical standpoint, even without direct occupation, a victorious Russia would hold Germany hostage. It would reduce it to a puppet state, constantly threatened with invasion.
Russia is already preparing for this war. The moment its campaign in Ukraine ends, all its resources will shift toward the next target. Our time is running out—it could be five years, three years, or even just a few months. This threat far outweighs climate change or child poverty because living under Russian attack and occupation is incomparably worse than either.
The single most urgent priority right now is building a military force capable of defending Europe. Anything less is an unaffordable gamble.
Bismarck would tell you otherwise, but what would he know, amirite?
Then tell me, what you think what Bismarck would tell me?
I also do not know why the opinion of an authoritarian prussian noble who would abhorish the present free and democratic Germany and Europe should be relevant.
“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”
And it was Kaiser Wilhelm II's foolish dismissal of that "authoritarian prussian noble" which led to more than 125 years of geopolitical disaster for Germany. She desperately needs a man of his quality; come to think of it, Europe could use a Metternich right about now ...
For over 30 years, Germany has done everything possible to establish "good treaties" with Russia. It even overlooked several blatant Russian transgressions in an effort to maintain its approach. Yet, despite all German efforts, Wandel durch Handel has failed spectacularly.
The negotiations leading up to the Ukraine war made this abundantly clear. Putin deliberately presented demands that were impossible to meet. He has no interest in fair agreements—he seeks empire and dominion, and he is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. Reaching a good treaty with him without force is as impossible as it was with ideological fanatics like Hitler.
Really? Pretending to implement the Minsk Accords (according to Mutti's own admission) is having "done everything possible?"
And if your historical priors end at 1938, well, it's a recipe for an impoverished set of possibilities. I did mention Metternich for a reason -- maybe you can figure it out ...
Germany was an open and friendly partner of Russia until Russia broke all rules of conduct and showed that it had no interest in friendly cooperation. What reason could Russia have to invade a peaceful and sovereign Ukraine if not imperialist ambitions?
The great thing about Green parties is that they fight against global warming and nuclear winter at the same time.
there's precedent.vote kriegskredite and save western kultur
I didn't see much speculation of how the new public spending might ease the stark West/East divide in Germany, with the economic have-nots and far-right concentrated in the old East Germany. Nor much mention of how rearming Germany and the rest of Western Europe might heighten tension between Germany and Russia... especially if Zelenskyy falls and the Russian army flexes muscles along the Polish border... with an eye toward claiming Poland. I'm just a spectator, but grew up in the 50s and 60s, with "duck and cover" at school, etc. Germany re-arming? Not an altogether heartening development.
"with an eye toward claiming Poland". USSR didn't claim Poland after WWII. WHy would it want to do it now? Is there indication from the Russian sphere that Russia needs more territory? Where do these ideas even come from, what recesses of the mind. Asking for a friend...
They typically come from the usual collection of swivel-eyed loons in the Anglosphere ...