The consumer voucher idea is also advocated by SPD members other than Steinbrück. I'm not entirely sure I like the idea: if they end when the economy rebounds (i.e. unlike permanent payrises), won't low-earning people, and that sector of domestic consumption, back where it was before?

While I wholeheartedly agree that at least a massive public works programme (including "another expensive environmental scheme that takes years to implement") would do good for Germany, I am not convinced that the German economy, or even German exports, is in mortal danger, like the scarecrows say (for always changing reasons). Export failed to collapse as predicted in recent recessions, either.

I note Münchau's focus seems to be a financial capitalist one: get companies' hands on people's savings.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
The consumer voucher idea is also advocated by SPD members other than Steinbrück. I'm not entirely sure I like the idea: if they end when the economy rebounds (i.e. unlike permanent payrises), won't low-earning people, and that sector of domestic consumption, back where it was before?

This is why you'd want the vouchers to go to something useful, like, say, energy efficient appliances. A lot of poor people have old fridges, incandescent lightbulbs, etc. If they'd upgrade to something three times more efficient, which is a reasonable figure to project, they'd have more expendable income. So there you have an investment.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even so: would fridge manufacturers not suffer a slump when the voucher programme is over?

OK, this could be managed by a slower tapering-out rather than instant end of the programme, or, even better, a reduced-scale voucher programme maintained until all old fridges are replaced.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 06:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fridges can be exported, too. And as long as we're talking about 250 euros, people are going to spend it on different kinds of stuff, from CFLs to washing machines to...

Anyway, it's the freeing up of money on the consumer side that matters in the long term for the economy, not the extra money for Siemens and Osram and Bosch. From the beginning of this stimulus talk I was thinking 'it might be a good idea to spend on greener stuff and infrastructure'. Because I always think that. But I wasn't sure how. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a great idea to do things like providing vouchers for energy efficienct appliances, and expanding the existing preferential (preferably down towards zero) rate interests for greening up houses. These things are long term investments. They're net positives to society on a level that we have been systematically underestimating.

A bit more on my blog.

P.S. I'm disappointed in the PES for not taking this theme and running with it. They had a pan-European Keynesian green expansion strategy lying on the shelf and have basically left it there, as far as I can tell.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 07:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, you are not the first making such proposals. Fricke has already in July argued for pretty much the same.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I copied it from the Süddeutsche here, so no claims to originality. Thanks for the link. It's important to tie different strains of advocacy for this together. I see that Benjamin Lenz is making pretty much the same argument in the comments on the FTD that I am making here. The comment by Rolling_Rock is also interesting, although I do not know if freeing up more private investment will happen.

From what I could find on the internet, the leader of the Berlin state Linke has supported this idea, as well as Andrea Nahles (lefty deputy leader of the SPD). But environment minister Sigmar Gabriel is opposed, on rather spurious grounds.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 03:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spurious grounds? Rather, no grounds at all, it seems to me. He is saying that he is against it and that it is more important to increase state investment in energy conservation, renewables and the grid -- but not giving reasons for either claim.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 04:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series