Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: who really is the master of the house once China no longer needs anyone else’s contacts? In Room #886 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into the Hanseatic League as an early globalization wave, a heat-pump giant with 14,000 employees pulling out of its own boom market, why “win-win” can be an argument-ending trap, and what full decoupling from China would really cost Germany’s energy transition. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A wonderful good morning to you all. Today we’re talking about globalization and deglobalization, and we want to look together at the advantages and disadvantages that arise from globalization and deglobalization. In the past days and weeks we’ve picked up on all kinds of different aspects, in the context of our overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with brAIn. We’ve looked at which technological developments exist, what interconnections exist here too, and what effects that has on various areas. And starting this week, we now want to look at the overall connections too, on the societal and also political level. And accordingly, today we’re starting at this point with globalization and deglobalization. The question is, to some extent, also against the background of all these technological developments and also the global effects of a very general nature, in inverted commas, that we humans are also responsible for, to what extent it might also be necessary to look at globalization again here. In recent years we’ve increasingly relocated things outward, so to speak, whether that’s production or other areas. Import, export plays a role here too, and so on. And that of course creates certain dependencies too, which then, for example during the pandemic period, very clearly also led to us needing to rethink and reflect on one thing or another, and also look again at what’s actually needed at various points, for example to not have supply chain bottlenecks, to remain competitive, and so on. And I’m sure it’s similar here to other contexts too. There isn’t just one thing that’s right and another thing that’s wrong, but everything has its advantages and disadvantages. And that’s why it’s about looking together today at what advantages and disadvantages arise from globalization or deglobalization, and getting into a bit of weighing things up here too, against the background of an exchange with different perspectives, which we can gladly open up, depending on what examples and thoughts, impulses, you’d like to bring in too. And in that sense you’re all warmly invited to bring in various aspects in this exchange this morning too. We’re recording the room the whole time, just a reminder again. That means anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing will get published accordingly too. And we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or can’t speak right now because it’s too loud in the background or similar, of course also has the option to use the chat again. And then we can pick up one thing or another, depending on how it fits well into the discussion content-wise. Right, and with that I’d like to open up this reflection space for today, and I’m curious who’d like to join first, to make the first entry with me together. And in parallel, maybe just a quick note. The day before yesterday we opened up the Future Skills aspect, and had said we’d definitely do a second room too. Only afterward did I unfortunately have to establish that, although the recording ran and a recording exists, the audio track didn’t take, so it didn’t work in the recording, so unfortunately we’re missing this recording of the Future Skills part 1, so to speak. I’d said anyway that we’d do a part 2, and we’ve now solved it in terms of preparation this way, because it just doesn’t fit in with the topics we’re tackling these days, so that there’s no confusion with the Sunday appointments and so on. That we’re appending it at the end isn’t necessarily a bad thing though. Sometimes the universe, in inverted commas, knows better how it fits in there. So we’ll put it at the end. Depending on how we need it, it makes sense anyway to go back into the memories, into the summary, as far as we can remember from part 1, and then connect with the discussion and continue it. And then we’ll just see whether we need one room or two rooms for that, and can then also adjust flexibly and orient ourselves accordingly. Just wanted to mention that on the side. Right, but let’s continue today gladly with globalization and deglobalization. What advantages and disadvantages arise from that? And then I’ll gladly mute myself now, and I’m curious who’d like to open the dialogue with me this morning.
A wonderful good morning, dear Marc. What do you say about the topic?
Yes, I’d like to start the way I learned from Jürgen, that we look at the topic, globalization, and first say my opinion or assessment or my meaning of this word globalization. I’d describe that with one word. For me the easiest is if I took globalization as interconnection, so interconnection. That would be the shortest expression for me to describe the whole thing.
Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much for this first approximation, so to speak. Yes, and what falls under this globalization as interconnection for you, then? So what are aspects we could pick up as examples too? What falls under it for you?
Right now what comes to mind for me is, this also has to do with Jürgen again, Jürgen sent me an assessment of the German Mittelstand, and that’s important for me as an entrepreneur, so I can see where we’re developing toward, how the economy is being assessed, and so on. Basically, if we discuss globalization in isolation, sure, we’ll be able to list advantages and disadvantages then. The advantage is that we can trade. There’s the advantage that countries that pursue this globalization, it’s demonstrable that there are countries with less poverty than before, because they participate in this world economic trade. That means poverty decreases, prosperity increases, and so on and so forth. And at the same time there are of course dependencies too. But we can get to that in a second step. First I see the advantages, of course, and someone who trades and someone who interconnects, that’s for both sides. Germany is very export-oriented. For us as a nation it’s totally important that we keep this interconnection we’ve entered into, and because a large part of our prosperity depends on it too, although, even though of course we also notice, in medicine, that through this prosperity we’ve earned and through this entrepreneurial principle that we also produce in other countries, because energy costs are lower and labor costs are lower, we’re putting ourselves into dependency, and then we also notice, when goods stop flowing because of something like the Corona crisis, what effects that had on our economy in hindsight.
Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and if we also pick up a definition from Wiki, there’s this term interconnection in there too, by the way, from globalization. It says interconnection, among other things, in the areas of economy, politics, culture, environment, and communication between individuals, societies, institutions, and states, that are increasing. And I find that really interesting, because you just said poverty decreases, prosperity increases. That immediately raises the question for me too, isn’t that also a matter of perspective, of where we’re looking from? So is it the case that poverty decreases everywhere, or does it apply when we look at it from Germany, or possibly the EU, that we have the feeling poverty decreases, prosperity increases. But if I think of third-world countries, that’s not necessarily the case. That means perspective certainly plays a role here too. And then you also mentioned the dependencies. That means we’ve already established that there are dependencies everywhere. On one hand you can pick up the aspect within globalization of, well, what happens then when we relocate everything outward, in inverted commas, and then incidents like a pandemic or similar happen, which leads to an effect, dependencies arising, for example supply chain bottlenecks or similar. On the other hand we have a second aspect of dependencies, namely through the interrelationships within, so not looking at domestic and foreign now, but we’ve seen that there are interrelationships in very, very many places too, if we look at technological developments for example, and so on. And here too we certainly have dependencies that one might also want to take into view or focus on in this consideration of globalization, or globalization too. Marc, would you like to continue on that?
I find that a totally exciting way of looking at it. I think you hit the point there. If things are going well for us, so if our prosperity is rising, then that’s a good way of looking at it. Then there’ll hardly be anyone who’s against globalization. Although you also have to say that I personally have the feeling that we’re at a complete turning point. The interconnections that currently exist are being rewoven right now. New obligations are arising right now, and then you also have to discuss in Germany, you have to tell people, okay, that was to our advantage for a while, that’s all great. But what’s happening right now with the USA, that a lot of companies will migrate away, because the USA is promoting green investments with a billion-dollar project, and the entrepreneurs of course also think, the situation is completely new. We’ll all have work. We also always talk about education, and that also struck me with these Future Skills, on the side, that you have to look at it differently. Future Skills are important, yes. Education is important, yes. But who says that has to be in Germany? Who says uneducated people in America won’t take over in the future the work that used to happen in Germany? Which of course means for us that a lot of people, if they’re not willing to move to the USA, can no longer do the work they did before, and then, as you said, new technologies come along, and then the view of globalization, if we ourselves are negatively affected by it on the other side, then completely new discussions will arise, I’m convinced of that.
Yes, absolutely, and here it makes sense to really think in both directions too. We’ve now picked up globalization to some extent first as a first approximation. And all these discussions we might have followed too, in the sense of, doesn’t it make sense to bring back one thing or another that was relocated outward, in inverted commas, then we’re back in this aspect of deglobalization. Here too there are certainly advantages and disadvantages to consider. What would be aspects we could pick up here, for example, so that we have a first approximation on both sides at least, both on the globalization side and on the deglobalization side? Would you like to start a first approximation here too?
Yes, that’s not all positive either, and it’s not all negative. I’ve forgotten the name now, but one of the four biggest chip manufacturers that exist, so where chips are, they’re inside everything, is also considering investing in Germany and building one of the most modern chip centers in Germany, so that we can become a bit more independent. In the field of chips, Germany alone won’t be able to do it. Please correct me if you have different information. I know that we’re six to seven years behind in this technology, just the German companies, behind what’s technically possible today. And this company that wants to invest in Germany belongs to one of the four biggest chip manufacturers. And the same thing is happening in the automotive and mobility sector with batteries, where it’s being discussed whether there’ll be one of the biggest car battery companies in Germany, and so on. So basically that’s happening in every industry, that it’s not just moving away, but also being considered to move to Germany, to establish new industries.
Yes wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. Jürgen has joined too. So I’d like to bring in Jürgen here too. And then let’s see if we can make cross-connections too. Jürgen, a wonderful good morning. What do you say about the topic?
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning, Marc, and everyone in the room. I think interconnection captures it, I find, quite well. Also in terms of the image that forms in the mind. A weave, a fabric is a weave for me too, a braid is a weave for me too. And what emerges from that are, from different nodes, sources and sinks, as you like to call them too, where information flows in and information flows back out, are certain fixed, firm connections that remain flexible in the overall context though. So far so good. That’s why I also think interconnection captures the whole thing quite well. And I thought to myself, from my point of view this is certainly not the first time this globe has had to deal with a wave of globalization. You can discuss this beautifully from an economic point of view. What’s decisive here is how you define globalization, and in particular in relation to the dimension of the globe. If I think back, for me this is one of the essential first globalization efforts and drivers, and then there’s also the connection to our overarching theme, pioneers. For me that was the German Hanseatic League, which, through its, and now negative critics would say, expansive export policy, brought about a pan-European economic interconnection at the time, and in particular a leading one ahead of Asia. And I’ve let one thing or another pass through my mind, there were other cycles too, and tried to capture that in a process, so not in a state, “we have globalization,” but in a process. And what keeps coming up for me, my personal opinion please, as process anchor points, when you look at various globalization phases, is a sequence, often from the side of pioneers, of forward thinkers, of visionaries, who recognize, that’s the first anchor point, who recognize that there’s a possibility. For the second point, the activity that follows, this active networking, offering oneself, convincing, and the third point, realizing. And then follow-up activities happen, and I think we can follow that very closely in recent history. Then a phase of influencing follows. And then at some point a phase of decision comes. Who now controls this network? Who pulls where, at which end, so the other one moves? And what’s also quite obvious, you have to go a bit further back in history, then follows the phase of taking over, maybe with the pre-phase of convincing, of taking over and dominating. And this entire process has its winners and its losers at every anchor point. And that’s something, a development in economic history that has always existed, and that ultimately leads to the construct of our globe that we have today. Namely an increasing polarization between two or three top technologies that are interwoven with each other due to supply and receiving relationships of natural resources, that one has and the other doesn’t, but where in the background it will eventually come down to the core question, who’s now the master of the house, and who’s the servant? Mind you, that’s my personal opinion. Thank you for listening.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Let me formulate a direct question here, one that maybe doesn’t need to be conclusively resolved, but since you just talked about winners and losers, does there theoretically always have to be winners and losers in this construct, or could it also be shaped or thought of differently, from your point of view, Jürgen?
I find that’s a really good question, but I think it goes very far into the philosophical, dear Yasemin, because it might sound a bit lofty, absurd, or crazy to some, that I say, even a loser can be a winner. That always depends on the point of view of the respective observer. And it’s such a classic comparison, that you say, well, without wanting to offend anyone, but this comparison with the textile industry in Bangladesh as a result of globalization leads to the enslavement of certain population groups there, and others counter that and say, the enslavement is actually already there, and it’s much worse, because these people barely get above the subsistence level, and through this work that we transport there, they at least have the possibility to lead the life of a good slave. Mind you, that’s somewhat exaggerated verbally, but I believe that hits the point of your question. I hope that when I say it depends on the individual view. And again, what I’ve said before, just like with leaders and those being led, just as there are many people who want to be led, there are also, in my view, very many people who accept without complaint being dominated. Mind you, my opinion. Thank you.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And here I’d like to check, Marc, do further thoughts come up for you through that, where would you like to dock in?
At two points. First at what you just said, dear Yasemin, does there always have to be winners? Yes, exactly, there doesn’t always have to be winners. The question is, where are the winners? Whether it’s in Europe, in Germany, when we talk about work, or whether it’s in the USA, for example. And just one example of what’s happening right now, and I find this really interesting too, what Jürgen just said, dear Jürgen, who’s the master of the house? You might think, we currently have the heating topic, all of Germany is only dealing with heating now. And then you might also think, that’s genius, because if we all need a heat pump now, a completely new industry emerges, that’s endless jobs. And if we’re now going to lose a lot of jobs in the automotive industry, then those who’d be unemployed could build heat pumps instead, then maybe we can catch that. And in that context I was really shocked by the news that a big company in Germany with 14,000 employees has outsourced this heat pump business. They now have a cooperation and have sold large shares of their company. 14,000 employees, not a small company, not a mid-sized company, a giant has sold its shares, because they said, exactly this heat pump business is what the Asians are waiting for. They’re already at the starting blocks, and they’re doing exactly the same as with the solar business. They’ll flood us with prices, because their labor costs are lower. And if nobody does the heat pump business at scale, then it’ll be us, and that’s why we’re giving up the business. And that really shocked me as an entrepreneur, because when a giant with 14,000, we’re not talking about a mid-sized company in a small town, or a company like the small one I have, but we’re talking about a company with 14,000 employees, that now, when the big business is about to come, already says beforehand, we’d rather get out. No chance.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Jürgen, on your cue I’d like to ask now, what are you applauding here?
I applaud the clear, unambiguous statement, always with Marc, how he positions himself too. And again on his initial question or statement, yes, there always has to be a winner, dear Marc. Yes, I’m completely with you there. From my point of view it certainly also depends on the respective point of view, because in order for me to feel like a winner, I need to recognize that too. But what I’d also like to point out, which often comes up in the context of globalization as a term, is this term win-win situation. And there are two terms where, from the start, something makes my neck hairs stand up, namely these terms are, first, “there’s no alternative,” and “win-win situation,” because from my experience, all the way to project work too, where this term also often comes up, “we need to create a win-win situation,” in my experience that’s usually connected with a weakness in argumentation, in the sense of, I convince the other person by selling them, trying to convince them, that there’s no alternative, which is absurd, and a) that they simply have to see this win-win situation. And if you look at the argumentation of recent years, especially with regard to, Marc, your report, dealing with the Chinese, that was actually the key variable of the argumentation, whether spoken or unspoken, in the sense of, if we give in a little there, we have our benefit here, and that’s a win-win situation, and that’s the knockout argument for me to not engage with any other discussion at all anymore, and that’s the dangerous thing about this term for me, and characterizes the discussion about globalization. Thank you.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and here too it makes sense to really look at the terms from different perspectives too. I personally find that this aspect of win-win situations also possibly suggests to some extent that both sides in an exchange, in a negotiation for example, or similar, are then winners to an equal degree. And from my point of view, a win-win situation doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a comparable winner in that sense, but that to some extent it ultimately has to do with a benefit factor too. That means a win-win situation could, for example, also be established not because one negotiating partner gets exactly as much as the other. Rather, the benefit that arises for the contracting parties, in inverted commas, or negotiating partners, each from their own perspective, against the background of what it brings me, so to speak, to see myself as a winner, in inverted commas, from this context viewed, and so, for example, a win-win situation doesn’t mean that everything is distributed equally, in inverted commas, but that a win-win situation is established from the benefit aspect viewed, and this aspect of “there’s no alternative,” I mean there is, in inverted commas, ultimately an alternative to everything, because we’ve established in many discussions too that everything has advantages and disadvantages, that context-dependent weighing always needs to happen, and decisions need to be made accordingly, whereby decisions are also thought of as revisable and adjustable too, against the background of an adjustment possibility, to make decisions too, because whether that’s fitting or not, certain aspects can of course already be picked up in advance in the consideration and weighing. Ultimately certain things might not have been seen at the present time, because maybe some results are missing, because maybe some aspects or influencing factors haven’t been sufficiently analyzed yet, findings are missing, whatever, which leads to a certain agility being necessary too, which however must not lead to us not making any decisions at all, because you could, in inverted commas, make a wrong decision, because then we’ve created a kind of standstill somehow and don’t get further, and this standstill that’s created usually then also has massive chain reactions that get triggered here too, and effects again. That means it’s not a standstill in the sense that there are no effects then, but the effects are then maybe even more noticeable, because you become active too late, in inverted commas, and then to see the whole thing as a process design too, a living process, that also, in the sense of flow, so to speak, it flows, here too really to look again, at least to stay in motion too, and then in the process itself to keep making adjustments too. Those are just a few thoughts I wanted to bring in too. Do you have further aspects you’d like to dock into here too? Go ahead, Marc.
Yes, I’d like to bring in something else too. We currently have a situation that Jürgen just described as one he’s never seen before. This will change our globalization once again, very, very much, and the word is self-confidence. We assume, I just said this, Germany is an export nation, that means we export products. What’s completely new, what we have to adjust to, the Chinese, they have a self-confidence like nothing else. And I once saw on a talk show, where a German manager was in China, and it was about 5G technology. And then he was together with Chinese people and said politely, “Listen, I have good contacts in Germany, if you want, I could steal something.” And then they just smiled at him, looked at him and said, “We don’t need your contacts.” And then he said, “How do you want to help us? We’re so strongly networked, we don’t need contacts, we know what we can do.” And I can give you another example, this was also in the news. Adidas, so Adidas also had a conflict with China. What does China do? They said, we don’t need European products. We’re so strong, we’ll make our own fashion labels. Of course that doesn’t happen overnight. But so far we’ve always assumed, and that used to be the case in the past too, that the Chinese were really, really keen on German brands. So our Miele and whatever they’re all called, they’re very, very respected in China. But we’re now seeing in the automotive sector, that what you would never have thought before, that in electromobility VW, Mercedes, and BMW only have a barely measurable market share, barely measurable, under 5 percent, while the Chinese have 12 to 15 percent in e-mobility, and that’s just one area, and that’s why this self-confidence might change the market in the sense that they say, why do we need it, we’re now so big, we have prosperity, prosperity means we can afford expensive things ourselves too, why do we need to import things from Europe, and above all, what should we even import from Europe, when we already have everything here and have it better, and all the companies, you should know this too. If a company wants to found itself in China, so if I found a company in China, then I have to disclose all product plans, everything down to the smallest company secret, for reasons of state security. I won’t manage to build an industry, a production in China, without disclosing to the Chinese down to the smallest detail in the technology and so on and so on, with all the plans, how it works. Of course only because of state security.
Thank you, thank you so much. And I find this aspect of self-confidence really exciting too. Especially not just with regard to countries that might be gaining self-confidence, but we can also reverse the whole thing and look at it from another perspective too, namely precisely with the products “Made in Germany,” “German quality,” and so on. We’ve built up self-confidence in this regard in the past too. And you could formulate the question too, to what extent the self-confidence that Germany had in many places in this context too might also have an influence on us sometimes standing in our own way, and precisely for that reason gaps also arise here, for example, because we’re of the opinion, well, the question is, where do we stand, what role do I or do we play as a nation in this overall network viewed, and what influence do I actually have too, and self-confidence plays a role here too, how I see myself, or how I evaluate my products, services, and so on too. Then we’re at the evaluation aspect too. And what can ultimately lead to, and especially in the automotive industry, when we observe that, we could even put forward the thesis that this might have let this gap grow so large, because against the background of the self-confidence with which we approached these topics, for example not continuing to work on certain technologies, because we assumed that quality and “Made in Germany” and so on would continue to hold sway here, and that this brings pitfalls with it at this point too. And if you wait too long, in inverted commas, then the reckoning, in inverted commas, can be very painful too, as in this case. Jürgen, I think you wanted to continue on that.
Yes, thank you, dear Yasemin. Thanks to Marc for the deepening example from China, with this aspect of self-confidence, the two of you, and with an elaboration, dear Yasemin, you confirmed that again too, that for me actually hits the heart of the matter. Because self-confidence is, for me, in any form of a partnership, and especially in economics, always a transparency of the attitude that carries me. And that’s a really essential aspect, this self-confidence with which China presents itself now. And secondly I’d like to add, which also carries over to our daily life, is the clear, unambiguous language that’s spoken. And anyone can read the five-year plan of the Communist Party and take it to heart, and it’s stated clearly there, for two years now, since the last congress, that by 2030 China wants to set the standards in the key industries of this world. And that’s exactly what you said, dear Marc. They present themselves with self-confidence. First, I can do something, I am something, and I will do something too, and I communicate that to you, so you clearly see where things are heading. And that’s something that, with us, especially in connection with Made in Germany, I’ll express myself carefully now, has, in recent decades, willingly, in many respects carried by a political consensus, I’d rather say a bending character, increasingly gotten lost from the self-understanding of managers, of economic politicians, and the like. And I think that will be the essential reason for the thesis that Marc also put forward, and I support it. You might remember this process I opened up. We will, that’s my personal opinion, end up being the losers in many sub-areas. When it comes to the nodes of the process, who dominates, to question who’s the winner and who’s the loser. And the automotive industry is a classic example of how you let a golden nugget be taken from the tray, that today, where is it located? In China. Because electric cars, technology around electric cars, self-understanding, what is mobility in the future at all? That’s no longer with us. That’s in China. Thank you.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And what becomes clear here is that ultimately it’s about power too, so we’re very quickly at this concept of power too. Maybe a note here too, that in the next two weeks we’ll also go deeper into this term, so we’ll also pick up the power relationships again too. And for today I’d now like to move into scenario thinking a bit. So if we say globalization versus deglobalization, and maybe just think through, if we said, well, globalization has so many disadvantages somehow, that’s being debated, whether that’s flying, whether that’s the climate effects, and so on, that on one hand we have high speed, high technologies, that also enable us to get from A to B relatively quickly, then, through relocating production abroad, to be able to produce more cheaply, and so on. So a lot of aspects come together here that bring us advantages too, but also put us into dependencies too. And through that this debate has also been triggered to some extent, especially during this pandemic period, through these supply chain bottlenecks and so on, to consider whether it wouldn’t make sense to think in the direction of a deglobalization again too. And here I’d like to briefly play through this scenario with you. What would deglobalization mean, and is that even realistic? So let’s play through this as a thought construct a bit. What would that mean exactly? What effects would that have, so that we can then consider together, or each for ourselves, is that even a sensible thought? So is that even possible? Can we even still act deglobally at this point, so to speak? What do you say about that, Marc, Jürgen?
Jürgen, go ahead.
That was an aspect I really wanted to add to my last remarks, what you’re now bringing up, namely the reversal of globalization, deglobalization, because I think it might even need more of a pioneering spirit, to recognize this deglobalization in its effect, in its benefit, a really important distinction, as you made it, in the terminology, and to turn the wheel back, now speaking purely figuratively. And the essential aspect in that, I see, as in many other things too, is that first I need to become aware of the consequences, and then also want to bear these consequences. And I’ll just stay on the top surface, the top level, of one, if we now decide, with a view toward China, to pursue a somewhat more rigid decoupling from China with regard to globalization. The dispute is raging right now politically too, how strong that should be. If I overdo that into a minimum-maximum, which is gladly done in economics, and say, we completely detach ourselves from China, because we no longer accept their values, and also don’t want to be the loser in these trade relations. Dear Yasemin, dear Marc, I ask you, for me one of the first essential losers of this decision would be a certain political direction in this country that wants to push forward the energy transition and electrification. That means they’d actually have to be the first to not just become clear about the consequences, but also to bear them too. And with such considerations I keep seeing myself in the position of saying, especially with globalization, deglobalization, the damage is already done, it’s much harder to get it back out than to start this process, to even dominate it, to then at some point realize, that’s actually the wrong path. For me it’s a huge challenge, exactly for such pioneers, and especially the interconnection between doing and recognizing what consequences that has for us, to show us that and put it to the vote. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you so much, Jürgen. Here I’d like to ask you to actually concretize that a bit more, because I don’t think these connections are so clear to everyone. So if you say, if we went the route of saying we’ll separate or completely detach ourselves from China, and in this context talked about losers with regard to the energy transition and so on. What exactly would that mean? Maybe you’d like to open up a few examples here, so it becomes tangible what’s meant by that. And that ultimately shows these connections too, how important it is to really think through these effects in different directions too, and play them through in scenarios, to then be able to go into the weighing against this background, and also be able to make decisions.
I unfortunately can’t, as far as I know it’s still not possible to post an image. There’s a very current publication of resource quantities of natural resources and rare earths and the like worldwide. As far as I remember, that goes back to an investigation the UN commissioned. Very current. And in summary you can say that China, the USA, and Russia hold a percentage share of well over 80 percent of all necessary resources needed for modern technologies as we understand them, so I mean electricity generation, as well as photovoltaics, and the conversion and then use of hydrogen, so everything we’re currently dealing with to master the future energetically, in the status quo mind you. These key technologies, not technologies but the prerequisites necessary for them, lie with these three countries. Good, and so if I now say, for example China, or which is also currently a topic, Russia. I separate myself from this partner, I exit from globalization with regard to the network with these partners. Then I decouple myself from access to these resources. In my opinion there’s also a second step, so that’s certainly not such a simple topic to capture in short sentences, because if a trading partner also recognizes that someone is detaching from this relationship, then a gap also emerges for me, in that a trading partner falls away for me. It’s not just that. I also need a buyer for my rare earths. There too you have to calculate what I do with them. Do I have an alternative partner respectively, and that’s the approach China currently has, as I see it, I bring the technology into the country too, to utilize these resources I have. And that’s why today the primacy of the automotive industry for the future, namely electrification, lies with China, no longer with Germany. I don’t know if I’ve made clear again what I understand by consequence. It’s in this case the aha moment to recognize, we’ve maneuvered ourselves into a situation, there’s a dependency, yes, but in this dependency we’re no longer the one who sets the pace. And that’s why you need pioneers who articulate this clearly and distinctly. Bringing to people’s attention, that this will be the consequence, to then possibly develop alternative scenarios. That means, dear Yasemin, our life in maybe 20 years will look completely different here in this country. Thank you.
Yes, great. Thank you, thank you so much. I think that makes it very, very clear, and above all one or another of us might now also think, well, if the prerequisites sit there, we’d still have the USA too, in inverted commas, and then, however, if we decoupled from China and Russia for example, and relied on the USA, then we’d also have a new dependency again, or one, because right now it’s distributed among various ones, and then we’d have a focus again in dependency on one area, on one country, in whatever context. That can be transferred to other examples too, and that means, and I find that another interesting conclusion, that doesn’t mean there are no alternatives, but these alternatives, in inverted commas, need to be thought through anew and developed against the background of a pioneering spirit, or something like that, possibly. That’s one thing. And the other thing is, especially in current debates and so on, that precisely this way of looking at things sometimes appears too far in the background, at least what you can observe, that decisions are to some extent made against the background of values or ideologies or similar, so to speak, and also openly announced, in inverted commas, and the consequences, well we’ll see about that then, instead of first considering what’s needed alternatively, or how Germany would need to position itself here too, so as to not have said something and thereby put ourselves into a difficult position or situation, from which we then can’t maneuver our way out again either, politically, without losing face. Jürgen, you wanted to continue here.
Yes, I’d gladly pick up what you just said, Yasemin. There’s namely, or one shouldn’t lose sight of one more thing, again this example with electrification, or the increasing dominance of China in the automotive sector. There are many examples showing that you have to consider that of course through this increased production, and the increased know-how that comes with it, a home market has to be satisfied first, or can be satisfied. There’s another example from history, I think I’ve told it before. I come from a city where shoes used to be the top 100 product. And an entrepreneur once told me, you know, if you just consider, in China back then 600 million people, today it’s over a billion, half a billion people still walk around without shoes. We could never produce that many shoes until they all have shoes. That’s exactly the same problem. One of the aspects of this globalization in the respective countries is that the benefit, as you put it, the economic benefit of course accrues first, please strike “of course” again, but can accrue, in the domestic market there. But what also needs to be considered at the same time is, with regard to dependency, that if the key technology also sits there, as in the example of China, now our example electric cars, the development of the necessary know-how also sits there for what follows the saturation of the market. I hope I’ve conveyed that reasonably understandably. That means what’s needed there, and here we’re back at our topic, and that’s the answer to your question you asked. It needs a vision. It needs not just goals. I always make a clear distinction there. Namely goal, saturation of the market, calming the citizen. Everyone has a car, everyone can get around and is mobile. That’s the goal. But the vision means selling this mobility and the citizens’ satisfaction in such a way that I can stabilize my system, my economic system, for another 20, 30 years too. That’s what I assume is China’s thinking. And not just China’s thinking, other economic powers too. Thank you.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And here we have the interconnections again, so to speak, to our other rooms, where we’ve picked up aspects too, what role does communication, storytelling and so on play in this interplay. On one hand you mentioned know-how. Know-how, that brings us directly to this education aspect again too. It becomes clear again that education plays a vehement role here too, with regard to, how do we get to shape our education, in inverted commas, to be or remain future-proof, or to become it, however you want to phrase it, from whatever perspective viewed too, context-dependent too. And that also makes it clear how all these topics connect with each other again. That means it’s necessary here not to look at isolated aspects separately, come to an evaluation and make a decision, but to consider, in an overall constellation, always against the background of possible effects of decisions, do we want that? That’s one thing. What’s needed for that? What are the prerequisites? How can we create the prerequisites for that, to then gladly make decisions too and move in that direction, but not simply make decisions and let come what may. And then let the gap grow even bigger at this point, which already exists in so, so many connections and contexts viewed. And that also shows the complexity of the topic, and what demands need to be placed here too, to really let action and doing follow, against the background of weighing things, and not just on the pure discussion level, in inverted commas, but with deeds accordingly following too. So I think that’s also a really, really important aspect, and accordingly debating is of course a prerequisite, to maybe get into an enlightenment here too, create awareness, both from the decision-makers and from those who are also debating, discussing here too, from the different bodies as well as the population, to do educational work too, to have a vision too, to have a vision for Germany at this point too, and not fall into wild actionism, in inverted commas. Right, so I’d say we’ve created a nice approximation for today. Tomorrow we continue with centralization and decentralization. There too we want to look at the advantages and disadvantages that centralization or decentralization bring, especially against the background of technological developments, and also the call, again and again, to introduce regulations and regulatory measures, and here too to open up various aspects, open up perspectives. And in the next days, with the rooms, we won’t have final answers at many points, but it’ll come together like puzzle pieces at the end, when we then also get into an exchange about political topics again, and pick those up too, to really sort out thoughts for ourselves too, and see what that means, always with this retrospective, that we opened up these individual rooms and already developed these interim results for ourselves. And I’m really looking forward to that, and in that sense I’d like to move into the closing round for today. Marc, Jürgen, what would you like to underline again to close the room today?
I’d like to, since it’s Monday, start the week with something positive. Jürgen said, who’s the master of the house? I’d like to change that sentence a bit. Who’s the master of the world? And the question for me would then be, what can you offer this master? It’s not just the question of who’s the master of the world, but what can you offer him? What can we do? Then I’m back at the topic of education. And what could we do to counter that? What could the master of the house need? Medicine, nutrition, chemistry, robotics, all kinds of things. Then we’re back at soft skills. And that’s what bothered me about the topic. When it comes to medicine, nutrition, so when it comes to such things, then communication skills and willingness to learn simply won’t be enough. I wish you a good start to the week.
Thank you, thank you so much. And just so we have the different perspectives here again too, I’d like to reformulate that in addition too. Further questions we can ask in this context is also, how do we become masters in our own house again? And maybe even, how do we become masters in the world, to pick up the terminology from you again too, dear Marc. Jürgen.
I’ll gladly give an answer to that, in reference to my godfather of words, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. He once said, feelings are everything. If he were alive today, I’d dare to contradict him and say, education is everything. I wish you a good start to the new week, and hopefully see you tomorrow.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. Yes, dear ones, great. I think a lot has come together again. I’m really looking forward to talking with you tomorrow about the topic of centralization and decentralization, and tying that in with the rooms we’ve started so far on the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with brAIn, to then see, at the end, once we’ve gotten that far, after several weeks, where the whole thing leads us, and what insights we can take away from that together for ourselves. In that sense, a great start to the week for you all, and see you tomorrow. Ciao!
