#888 Connections & Dependencies

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: our own solar technology, sold to China, improved there, and now banned from being sold back to us — what does that say about who really controls the future? In Room #888 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into Meyer Burger’s subsidy dilemma, Intel’s ten-billion-euro chip deal, a solar entrepreneur who can open a US factory in weeks versus two years in the EU, and why performance and education might be the only way out of an economic war. 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 continue with connections and dependencies. What connections and dependencies can be recognized in an overall view of a global transformation, that’s the question we’re dealing with. Because in recent days we first opened up so many different perspectives, by looking at various technologies and so on. And now it’s about starting to look a bit in the direction of connection and dependencies, and seeing what that actually means when we start here, so to speak, to think in connections too. And yes, for that we can of course pick up to some extent what we’ve looked at in recent days and weeks, and at the same time maybe also one or another news item we can currently observe, read up on at one point or another. And I’d like to start with you together on that, to gather various impulses and start together here. And in that sense you’re all very, very warmly invited to join again today too, to open the dialogue. And then we can discuss one thing or another accordingly, get into the exchange, and see what all comes together through that. And the reminder again today too, that the room is recorded the whole time and published later too. In that sense, anyone who joins automatically agrees to that being published too. And we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason can of course also use the chat again today to bring in one contribution or another. And with that I warmly welcome Marc at my side. A wonderful good morning, dear Marc. What are your first thoughts?

Good morning to the group. My first thoughts, besides Yasemin, and this is what I woke up with this morning, are whether you have a crystal ball, because I find how current this room is, that became suddenly clear to me again this morning, how current your room is, and it was reinforced by the fact that I also watched a talk show last night, and this big overarching theme, pioneering spirit, yes, pioneering spirit, connection, dependency, and global transformation, and then I observed things for myself that, in my opinion, are going to affect us very, very strongly, namely what can we do as a society, so both societally, politically, individually, because the decision, there are two starting points for what we’ll talk about today, politics versus entrepreneurs on the topic of dependency and global transformation, and a really, really big topic will also be subsidizing our industry, and I observe, as I said, two starting points, one from politics and one from entrepreneurs, and every decision and everything that happens affects all of us in the room, us, so every answer from a politician, every solution from a politician affects us, and also every solution from an entrepreneur affects us, our prosperity, our jobs, and that’s why, I’d add, I’ll repeat it again, that’s why it’s important that we talk about this, so we also know what we can do individually, societally and politically, to talk about dependencies and global transformation.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. And as you just said, it affects all of us, in inverted commas, even if we don’t always immediately realize that it has effects. And when we think in connections, that becomes relatively quickly clear. And if we now, with all these aspects we’ve picked up in recent days and weeks, look at the newspaper today too, or something similar, then one thing or another might catch our eye differently too, because there’s a certain shift in focus through that too. And I’ve just, well, SingNews is included in my subscription, I get it automatically sent every morning, and with this lens of today’s room topic, I just picked up yesterday and today, so to speak, and just looking here, I’ll start with yesterday, there are several topics that, if you just read the headlines without going into details, you already have first direct effects here, that you can see too, with all these topics. One of the topics published here yesterday was “Major AI offensive at media giant,” “Springer massively restructures Bild newspaper,” “Six regional editions discontinued.” So here we’re really talking about big numbers. The numbers aren’t published in detail yet, because there needs to be consultation with the works council and negotiations and so on first, and then it’ll be announced accordingly. The headline already reveals a lot, and the background with the AI offensive is interesting in this context. Then there are some things published as question marks, like something about systemically relevant or dispensable, what threatens the economy if basic chemistry moves away. Here it’s about relocations. Then we have, for example, wait, I need to scroll a bit further. There are also topics like where artificial intelligence is already being used in daily work. It was found that every fourth German in a survey by the TÜV association, of a thousand people surveyed, stated that they already use ChatGPT in daily life for professional purposes. Then there are observations to make, like 426 billion dollars at the table, Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault meet for the most valuable lunch on the planet. So here you don’t know exactly what’s coming, in inverted commas, but it certainly makes sense to observe things like this too, and consider what’s happening right now, especially when powerful people, or those belonging to the top 1 percent by wealth worldwide, are involved, it’s always interesting to observe what’s coming toward us next, in inverted commas. Positive as well as negative. And here again we don’t just have the two sides in the sense of only good or only bad, in inverted commas, but often there are many facets in between too. And then we also have ChatGPT, game changer for job searching and applications. So here too nice tips are given. Then we have, let me quickly scroll through, I haven’t copied this out, I’m just scrolling directly through the news. And accordingly, then we have today, China secures worldwide control over the battery raw material lithium, Germany’s dependency is growing, for example. Then various talks are constantly taking place too. Today the German-Chinese consultation is included here, the economy has high expectations for the government talks and so on. So you see that if you just pick up now what we’ve talked about in recent days, and look at the topics with a certain shift in focus, you’ll find one thing or another here too. Then we have here, takeover? Covestro in the sights of Abu Dhabi. So here it’s about initial talks taking place in the direction of a takeover, and so it goes on. Accordingly, if you look at it with this lens, it might become clearer or more obvious that it’s not just, in inverted commas, one technology coming, that it’s not just about job changes, job creation and job cuts, but that here a lot of aspects trigger chain reactions too. And that’s what has really great relevance when viewed in these connections, and accordingly what you said at the start, Marc, that both the problems and the solutions found always affect us too, all of us. Marc, would you like to continue on that?

Yes, very gladly. And since it’s so complex, we always mention that, I really became aware of a few things yesterday during the Markus Lanz show. And for anyone who wants to look it up, the first half of the show really annoyed me, not just because of the politicians, but because some statements were just silly at times. But there was an entrepreneur, and I’m referring to Meyer Burger, because everything we’re talking about today came up there. Meyer Burger is the only, the world’s largest solar manufacturer that still exists compared to China. And let me try to summarize briefly what happened there. Our topic is global transformation and dependencies. German institutes and German engineers developed solar energy, and this Meyer Burger is, as I said, the only company in Europe, still leading worldwide, in this field. We developed the technology, and Meyer Burger built the machines. These machines then went to Asia, and the Chinese then, this started in the 2000s, when we had Solar World. In 2008 China decided, politics decided, this is the future technology, so we’re betting on that, and then tried to rebuild the machines. Everyone laughed about that. Meanwhile, and now I get to today, the machines are so good that they’re comparable to ours and better. That means our technology, which we invented, went to China, and now you could say, and here’s something else that comes into play that we need to talk about, we always think everything works by the rules, we’re fair and we love, we play by the rules, and basically you could say now that the WTO, the World Trade Organization, watches over that too. There are patents too. So no problem at all, that the Chinese are market leaders there. Except if a country doesn’t recognize that, it doesn’t help us at all. A patent doesn’t help us at all if it’s simply ignored in China. And now it’s like this, and this really astonished me, I didn’t know this either, these machines that we delivered to the Chinese, which the Chinese then improved, are now so good that a year ago there was a decree, not yet in law, but a decree, that these machines can under no circumstances be re-exported to Europe. That must not happen, because that’s the technology of the future. That was already decided in 2008, and these machines may not, as I said, be sold back to the Europeans, because that’s the future technology, and meanwhile the Chinese control over 50 percent of the world market. And what I said at the start, sorry, that was a lot of information, which I’m really trying to share with you emotionlessly, even though the topic moves me. And what’s added to that now, and that’s why politics versus entrepreneurs. The head of Meyer Burger is currently considering whether to go to America. Now politics is trying to find answers for the future. And answers, we heard this in the news yesterday, Intel gets 10 billion euros. I’d like to thank everyone in the room here for helping with your taxes. Every Intel job is subsidized with three million, so that Intel builds chips in Germany in the future. And now the discussion breaks out. I don’t have a clever answer for you there, but the discussion will increase in Germany. If we want to keep certain industries here, reduce dependencies, to what extent are we then willing to subsidize companies in the future? The same thing is happening at Thyssen. Thyssen will produce a green furnace. Thyssen gets three billion, but they have four blast furnaces, so they’d need four times three billion to keep up in the future. Politics is now saying, okay, we’ll pay for one furnace, and if you then see that it’s working, you’ll invest the rest of the money yourselves. That’s all nicely said, but an entrepreneur reacts differently than a politician, and the head of Meyer Burger was then also attacked quite strongly by the politicians, and many people don’t find what’s happening there good, and he just said, well, we’re currently considering, we’ve bought buildings in the USA, we’re considering whether to go to the USA now too, because we’d get two million every year for five years in subsidies if we relocate our company there. That’s 1.1 billion for us, and an entrepreneur does consider whether to leave Germany and go to the USA. And a politician can say, we don’t find it good if we subsidize everything, it can’t continue like this, and he, as an entrepreneur, gave the answer, while you’re here talking and discussing, the market will simply change. And he said something else that’s also quite interesting, because Mr. Lanz then asked him, well, how long do you need to open a production facility in America? A few weeks. And how long does that take in Europe? Two years. If we want to change something here, through the European Union, until it’s reviewed, changes here take two years. If I move my company to the USA, I need a few weeks. And that shows dependencies and global transformation too. The good thing is, we’re no longer dependent on China maybe. We’re then dependent on the USA instead. But to come back to the topic, connection and dependencies, they won’t decrease in the future. They’ll rather increase, only they’ll shift.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and the topic of subsidies is also a really interesting one, I think, at this point, because you can look at it from various points of view too. The question at this point is also whether subsidies don’t bring certain disadvantages with them too, regardless of which funds they’re paid from and so on. Namely, if we just look at it from an economic thinking perspective, if we have more and more companies being subsidized, how does the economy function through competition and so on and so forth. The more subsidies are distributed, the more we automatically move, viewed from the company’s perspective, into a situation, into a comfort zone, where it’s no longer necessarily necessary to think in a competitive way either. And that can cause a slowdown at many points too, for example in processes, in implementation, in the innovative strength brought in here, and so on. That means there are a lot of pitfalls hidden here too, in inverted commas. And tomorrow we’ll also have the topic of self-inflicted immaturity, question mark, which we want to deal with as the room topic. And accordingly, that would already be a point that contributes to that direction too. Would you like to continue on that maybe, dear Marc?

Exactly that’s the point, dear Yasemin, where you simply can’t find an answer, exactly with the subsidies. And if we go back to the past today, look, China decided, it doesn’t matter to us, we’re betting on the future technology, and there we won’t find an answer either. I come back to the rules. Yes, I also agree with you, free market and entrepreneurs and we regulate everything. But there are players who don’t stick to our rules. Rules, and that was exactly the topic at Lanz too. Normally certain technologies, so solar technology, shouldn’t be subsidized. But there are players who do that. That doesn’t interest them. And the Americans, I found that quite interesting too, I’d never heard that either. And now something else comes into play. We all know about the Uyghur problem, and then I heard some information yesterday at Lanz, never read it in the newspaper, the Uyghur province is one of the most important provinces at all for the technology of the future. 50 percent of the components are manufactured there, and also the materials we need to be able to make solar panels. And if I understood correctly, the USA, precisely because of this problem that results from it, which we all heard about in the news, said that we no longer import components from China. We now want to reduce dependency by protecting our own market. Currently all the panels and everything connected with them flow to Europe, that goes to Europe, and that’ll be one of the most important discussions, whether we’ll support companies with subsidies in the future. Subsidies means everyone here in the room pays for these companies, and that was of course jokingly mentioned yesterday by the moderator, because he said to the entrepreneur, well that’s extortion, if you go there too, this solar manufacturer also contacted politics and asked what support would look like, and then said, extortion, and that’s the nice thing about the German language, some will call it extortion, others support. From a results perspective, it’s like, he said with a side comment, well like the mafia, I’m making you an offer you can’t refuse, and used Nokia as an example from the past too. Nokia was also very massively supported, had one of the biggest plants in Bochum, then at some point it was given to Romania. That means that support doesn’t protect us as employees either, that our company will stay in Germany forever. Because if the circumstances change after the support has been claimed, I as an entrepreneur can still relocate my plant to any country after a few years. Because as an entrepreneur I’m free, or have great power to be able to do that too.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And I also think that subsidies, in inverted commas, aren’t all the same, so that we may also consider here that there are differences too against the background of the countries and their political constellations. So from my point of view, the support that takes place in China, for example, needs to be evaluated differently, in inverted commas, against the background of the political construct than in a free market economy like in a democracy. And there are also other terms we can bring into play. Does it always have to be a subsidy? Aren’t there other possibilities too, like, for example, companies and entrepreneurs maybe also being able to raise money through various funding pots or otherwise, so here too, or maybe through investors, as is the case with investors in the USA for example. So there are certainly various strands that could be thought about here too, and how could we, instead of a subsidy taking place, handle things here with other terms and other possibilities, so that certain disadvantages in this context, which we’ve already talked about, don’t arise, but a boost can still take place to a certain degree, funds can still be raised, and the corresponding support is there, so to speak, for the corresponding ideas and innovations, funding can be raised too, and that one operates on a larger scale here though, and not so small-scale as is currently the case with us, or then we also come to our bureaucracy, with structures and processes here too, that it sometimes just takes too long, or the complexity is very, very high, how you get to this money, all the way to over-bureaucratization of documentation obligations and so on and so forth, which can then partly be so restrictive that you as an entrepreneur or company keep your distance from that too, because you don’t want to be restricted in your own autonomy either. Marc, would you like to continue on that too?

Yes, first let me hug you again today, dear Yasemin. That’s exactly what came up yesterday too, asking the right questions. And since it’s so complex, it’s important that you talk about it, and that you shed light on very, very many points of view. And one answer was also, if we don’t know, because information is deliberately left out. We’ve learned that storytelling is important. Everyone does storytelling, especially in politics. One of the reasons why companies go to the USA is expensive energy costs. If you then question and understand why our electricity price is too expensive, there was a really simple suggestion yesterday. Hey, if electricity cost 8 cents for us, that wouldn’t be a problem at all. At least not a problem, because a lot of taxes are levied on it. So if we lower the electricity price, everyone benefits. Not just the big companies, but every citizen. And there are certainly answers to that too. And since the topic is so complex, and in these discussions parts are gladly left out too, because everyone represents a certain point of view and has a certain lobby, it’s so difficult. And actually, this has changed, I actually prepared for today by wanting to give you some information about how the Mittelstand assesses our future. And then I looked it up, without evaluating it, it was just interesting too. There’s an institute that did a survey on what that looks like and how many companies assess Germany. And then I saw that this institute is really small. They hardly have any employees. And then I also saw that there are people from politics involved, without devaluing, so without evaluating, ultimately it is an evaluation, but there are people from politics involved, that there are people with a team of maybe 50 people, then maybe 40 or 50 people, who then give an assessment. Well, who gives us their orders and so on and so forth, and that we always become aware, when we’re together like this, who’s doing the storytelling, who’s involved, who are the customers, what interests might they have, and that you really make yourself open-minded, and exactly what you said, dear Yasemin, what other questions could we ask? Is that really the only solution approach we have, or do we just accept it? And I just think that the complexity leads to a lot of people saying, oh my god, I don’t understand that, I notice this in myself too, but that’s so complex, I’d rather leave that to the politicians, or a second popular answer is also, I can’t do anything anyway, if they decide that, my god, if my boss wants to go to America, what should I do, then I’d rather have a nice day outside, go for a walk in Cologne, because I don’t have it in my hands anyway. And that’s also why it’s so important to recognize the connections, because at least we have one small point we can influence, namely our vote, that’s at least one small factor we can definitely influence. Our vote in our election.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. Another aspect I’d also like to bring in is also picking up the point of view that in the last two, three years we’ve had many exceptional regulations, also owed to the Corona pandemic, decisions had to be made differently somehow, fast decisions had to be brought about, you can evaluate that differently, I know. I don’t want to go into evaluating what went right or wrong here, but we handled certain things differently too, in inverted commas, and here to look again, to also row back at various points, and accordingly to see that this is also discussed accordingly, and then accordingly voted on and either waved through or rejected at the designated places. And what I find interesting in this context, I saw a report about this yesterday, that there’s apparently something being negotiated today before the Federal Constitutional Court, because there was a lawsuit from the Union. I don’t remember exactly what amount it was, either 60 or 80 billion euros were apparently taken from the pot that was actually intended for the Corona bridging aid. That means decisions were made here, many lockdowns were made and so on and so forth. And to boost the economy again, there were designated funds, so to speak, that were held back in a pot for companies, so that when applications were made, they could be reviewed and approved accordingly. And it now concerns an amount that was intended for 2022. As I said, either 60 or 80 billion, I don’t remember exactly which amount. And then apparently, even before the applications were processed, already at the beginning of 2022, this amount was taken out and moved into a climate pot. And that wasn’t communicated much at all, or similar, and also not passed in the Bundestag or anything like that, and that’s why there’s a hearing about that today at the Federal Constitutional Court. Let’s see how the decision turns out. So it’s totally exciting when you observe this too, in inverted commas, in politics too, that certain decisions that were made quickly, against the background of the time we found ourselves in with the Corona pandemic, that one thing or another, in inverted commas, apparently still hasn’t been properly rowed back yet, that the normal formal paths are really followed accordingly here, but decisions are still being made that might not be quite right, and accordingly it remains to be seen how it continues, and how the Federal Constitutional Court decides on this. But if you look at that, not just with regard to Corona bridging aid now, but quite generally, if that’s done at other points too. We also talked about how one thing or another, because it’s not picked up by the media at all, totally passes us by too. That means you really have to do your own research, stay on top of it, and watch, to be able to follow one thing or another at all, because otherwise there are just decisions that we eventually find out about somehow. But these are such fundamental things, like discussions about the topic of the WHO, is that desired, not desired, and so on, that some of that also just passes us by, where we don’t notice anything at all. And here too the question arises, how can we then maybe ensure that we really get relevant information too, and also the imbalance, in inverted commas, that I find arises here too, about what then gets picked up or discussed in the media. That doesn’t mean that what’s discussed in the media is somehow wrong, but an imbalance arises, that certain aspects are constantly chewed over up and down, so to speak, and on the other hand important relevant topics aren’t picked up at all, and thereby completely pass us by. Marc, would you like to continue on this too?

Yes, and with another example. And I can only underline what you said. I don’t find a clever answer for myself either. I just always find it interesting how we look at things. If someone now says to me, Marc, it’s not about right or wrong. If someone now says to me, hey Marc, did you hear about Intel? They’re now getting three million per job, ten billion. Then someone is simply being supported. Then I say, well, because of Corona things didn’t go so well as an advertising medium, nobody gave me money. I find that pretty stupid. On the other hand you also have to see, and that’s the whole global perspective to consider, the Chinese are now world market leaders, world market leaders in solar, because the state impermissibly supported this technology with 100 billion. They didn’t care whether that’s allowed or not. That I don’t find good or bad, but you just have to be able to say, that happened, they got 100 billion, that’s why they’re world market leaders today. And that’s why it’s much too simple or too short-sighted to say subsidies good or not good. And I’m right there with you too, dear Jürgen. And I had to think of Trump last week. I’m certainly no fan of Trump. But what’s happening now everywhere, America First, India will do that too, and America too. The markets will protect themselves, try to protect themselves, by bringing production into the country and then also selling it in the country, to detach themselves from dependency once, and try to close ranks again in the markets compared to before. So a bit away from world trade, a bit back toward trade and production in one’s own country.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and then let’s directly bring in Jürgen too. A wonderful good morning, dear Jürgen. What do you say about the topic?

Good morning, dear Yasemin, good morning Marc and everyone in the room. I’d like to address two points you raised. Once again on the term investment, or subsidy, and secondly, on what you said, Marc, at the very end of your second-to-last remarks. What’s left for us is our vote. To anticipate that right away, that’s for me one of the essential components, that we no longer have this vote. The reason for that, it’s not the first time in economic history that an obvious war of systems is raging. A war of systems that, in my view, can be traced back on a meta level to two main components, primarily state-directed and primarily entrepreneurial spirit or pioneering spirit, which sees the spirit of the individual company at the forefront. What’s happened in recent decades, in both these systems, let’s take the polarization between China and the Western world. There are also in-between sizes as always. But let’s take that as an example. It’s actually the same, and it’s essentially based on subsidies. On subsidies though, with a different starting condition. But there’s another example, very current right now for China, that reveals this, namely with regard to, you all know the company AstraZeneca, maybe more on that later, but that illustrates it quite well. The difference in subsidy behavior between these two systems is that in China the subsidy is ordered, and then subsidized accordingly, and evaluated accordingly, or identified as a good or bad result by the ruling state power. It’s ordered and done. With us, the subsidy behavior is, with us it’s considered, recommended, and it’s still left up to each individual to accept this subsidy in size, in form. Let me count the Intel example. Intel had a subsidy amount offered, if I remember correctly, of six billion, and then, this term has already come up, started the extortion machine, and now we’re at ten billion. The second thing behind that, and then we’re back at the topic we also had yesterday, dear Yasemin, that you raised, that’s actually the third thing, behind everything is power. And both have parallels here too, namely with both, this kind of subsidy supports the preservation of power. In China the power preservation of the Communist Party, and with us the power preservation with regard to re-electability in, for example, two years. The difference lies again in the means and in the way you can deal with failures. With us, a politician or a party is potentially voted out. In China or in other autocratic, dictatorial states. And now here it comes, you do what you also clearly say in advance, you’ll enforce it with all your power. And exactly between these two positions lies, for me, the essential challenge and what we’re currently missing. In my view, this fight can no longer be avoided with lukewarm and warm words and self-declarations and playing with terminology, it’s no longer decoupling that’s the phrase, but de-risking, whereby hardly anyone explains to us, or to me at least, but maybe I’m not informed enough, can explain what the actual difference is, let alone the content. No, in this case it needs to be acknowledged, I’ll say it the way I see it, we’ve been in an economic war for a long time. We’re at war and we’re on the losing path, and if something doesn’t happen soon, and dear Marc, that’s exactly your point, standing behind moral commitment also means being willing to say it to someone’s face what you loudly proclaim to the world. Best example yesterday, press conference after the consultations between Scholz and the Chinese envoy. I believe he’s the second man in the hierarchy in China. He prevailed by having questions on certain topics that we morally see as attackable banned. That’s the problem. Whether economically, politically, or otherwise in self-understanding. We lack standing and the commitment that power too must take a really essential component in our lives. Thank you for listening.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, dear Jürgen. I’m considering twice now whether I should go in provocatively, and I’ve decided, I’ll just do it now. Now I could say, yes, showing standing, moral aspects etc. Isn’t that what Annalena Baerbock does? Question mark? I know, I’m triggering a bit now.

Yes, that’s certainly, with regard to the individual position of moral understanding that she embodies with her feminist foreign policy, certainly a debatable, in my view debatable approach. Only, dear Yasemin, being able is the measure of being allowed to. I can rise up as morally as I want, but if I recognize that I’m putting myself in danger with that, and especially the people I’m responsible for as a leading politician in this country. Then we’re at the point we had yesterday, extremely valuable, moral to the point of exhaustion on one hand, morality not present on the other. Life plays out in the in-between tones, in the gray tones. And that, in my view, is the big flaw, also in many of Annalena Baerbock’s appearances, which are basically actually quite positive. Just not reflected on the possibilities, on the ability, on being able to push through and the consequences connected to that for the people I’m responsible for. That’s what I hold against her.

Oh, you put that so nicely. Thank you, dear Jürgen. Marc, go ahead.

I’m smiling a bit, but not because the topic is unimportant. Two points on that, dear Jürgen, this reminds me of the game “good cop, bad cop.” I don’t actually find it bad if there’s someone who says their opinion, and I still underline everything you said. I also found it interesting to get the information again, China has really few friends, and if we now have two positions, two parties in the company, where one says that, where there’s of course a certain danger, and the other appeases that again, then it’s at least been addressed once. Otherwise I agree with you. And the same thing, which I haven’t answered for myself yet, I also found this very exciting, a security pact was decided that’s supposed to protect us and independence and so on and so forth, with 75 pages, and Lanz just asked yesterday, how can it be, a security pact with Asia, that the word Taiwan doesn’t appear a single time in it. And you could see how the politicians on the show just babbled and were poorly prepared. Yeah, yeah, there were some answers. He asked repeatedly, how can it be, in a 75-page security pact, that Taiwan doesn’t come up, shouldn’t we then not meet with them? How do we deal with that? And that’s exactly what happened, dear Jürgen, what you just said. Yes, we’re putting ourselves in danger with that, they reacted exactly the way you just described. We’re putting ourselves in danger. We’re not just an important partner, China is also our most important partner. You don’t do something like that. And then there’s exactly the moral question I’m allowed to discuss, because I don’t have the responsibility, to what extent do I have it, or to what extent must there still be people or groups who voice their opinion, so we at least bring it up. Good cop, bad cop, and there have also been other delegations traveling to China, saying, we don’t see it that way, and well, at some point that one gets voted out, then they appease. So I don’t see it quite as bad. Not black and white, as you said. It’s all a bit gray, not just entirely black and white.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and I’d then like to use the remaining time to look at things with a solution-oriented view too. Jürgen put it so nicely, a war has been raging for a long time here, an economic war, and Germany isn’t on the winning side right now, to put it kindly. And what does that ultimately mean, if we, against the background of the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with brAIn on one hand, and on the other hand all these technological developments, follow these discussions. A few terms, approaches have already come up in this direction too. To look more closely again at what’s needed more now, in inverted commas, and that’s certainly not one thing or the other, but a mixture of various things, so we can get back onto, let’s call it, the fast lane, or at least keep up minimally, in inverted commas. Go ahead, Jürgen.

I can make it short if you want, and can throw in a term. That’s education. And if I may elaborate briefly, the special position of our country and also Europe in recent, you could almost say the last two centuries, was driven by, your topic, dear Yasemin, pioneers. Bright minds who had visions and who brought about changes against resistance too. Whether that was in physics, whether it was in chemistry, whether it was in medicine, whether it was in pharmacy. Look at the development and where these pioneers sat in the last century. It was Europe’s hallmark to lay the intellectual foundation for the future through pioneering spirit here. What I consider an absolute catastrophe, in connection with the term education, is the second term, performance, that for reasons absolutely incomprehensible to me, a certain political clientele has succeeded in recent decades in pushing through this term of performance through, I need to be careful now, for me incomprehensible leveling and equalization in favor of the less capable, at the expense of the capable. And for me these are the two essential components, because I still think, well, the two essential components performance, identification, and a yes to performance and also to a performance-oriented society, and a) the foundation of a corresponding education for that. And so we’re back at one of our core topics, that I say, yes, dear Marc, your topic STEM subjects for example, school system revival and so on. These two positions, my personal opinion, if they’re not put in focus, and very quickly put in focus, and changed, we won’t win this war. I’m firmly convinced of that. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Let me quickly ask a follow-up question here. These are aspects you’ve mentioned that also require a rethink on one hand, especially this performance aspect you mentioned, has a lot to do with rethinking too. That means it also needs some time and education. Now regardless of how quickly certain things are implemented too, that’s not suddenly there again as a foundation overnight either. Given the point where we stand, the speed that’s there and so on, and the gap that’s arisen, do you think that this can work, that it can take hold quickly enough at this point, Jürgen?

Dear Yasemin, don’t be angry with me, but that’s not a criterion for me. If something takes a long time, then it just takes a long time, and I can fully accept that changing this system, this bureaucracy, because that’s the foundation altogether, to bring about change in these two areas. That’ll take a long time. Only, if I don’t start with it, then tomorrow it will have taken a day longer already, and continue to take longer. And accordingly, thank you for the setup, besides the two, the two terms performance and education, that’s the third point, and it’s very essentially connected with the noun power, so making, and that’s the essential third point. Thanks for the hint.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much. I didn’t mean it in the sense of not even starting with it, but which components might be needed in parallel too, so we’re not just waiting for changes to take effect once they’ve been brought about, but maybe there are more aspects that could be additionally transferred into implementation in parallel too, to gain speed here too. Marc, would you like to continue here too?

Yes, two points. One argument I haven’t brought up yet, and also one reason for the relocation or for the global transformation is also that in Germany we have the luxury, really have the luxury, to discuss work-life balance, the four-day week, just to get people at all. And now my point is that there’s a counter-argument for every argument. Until yesterday I still thought, well, work-life balance, in the USA people have four jobs so they can make ends meet. We talk about work-life balance. At the same time there’s the counter-argument though, and that also needs to be discussed. Yes, okay, but you only find that if you Google it. There are indeed people who have four jobs in the USA, but that’s also where the term “quiet quitting” comes from, from the USA. Many people also have no job and then do nothing more. That exists in Germany too. And that’s the difficulty, that we have a counter-argument for every argument, and the truth for me, I’ve thought about it, dear Yasemin, what we can do to get this process going. I think you have to talk about taboos again too. And without going into more detail now, that’s one, this is a position we need to deal with, that’s the refugee flow. Who comes to Germany, who’s allowed to come to Germany, who comes, what do we do, because that leads to changes, also to other parties that we might not want. With the high school diploma, I’m very close to school, with the diploma you also have to say that there are teachers, parents also have power. Parents nowadays sue if a child gets a 4 in math instead of a 3. And there are teachers who say, well, so I don’t get another letter from a lawyer in Düsseldorf, they get a 3 then. I really don’t care about that. And the schools also have something to do like the economy. They need to fill their classes. And if a teacher or a principal sees that Marc maybe doesn’t have what it takes for a high school diploma, I can still go to the Gymnasium, because I first have to fill my classes, because I have to keep my teachers employed too. And that’s also a taboo topic, education and taboo topic again, that you also have to say, what are the requirements, how do they need to be, and a teacher should be allowed to tell my parents again, yes dear Mr. Schinschetzki, I’m terribly sorry, your son is really a totally nice, funny, bright kid, but we can’t give him the diploma, because he didn’t manage the requirements in the elective subjects, and there are many points there, again the word taboo and education, those are for me also two things we can do to counteract this process.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and ultimately also, in inverted commas, restoring attractiveness too. So a related topic that connects here, from my point of view, is also this, because people simply move away, emigrate and so on, because they no longer see certain opportunities here, or no longer consider the country attractive enough. Or whatever the backgrounds are, that we also have people in the country, I’d see that too, who might well be led to certain tasks anew at one point or another with corresponding guidance, support and so on. You know the discussion about the skilled labor shortage, and there’s already been quite a bit in the works for some time to simplify the immigration of skilled workers. Here too we may, I personally find, look at this critically, because the question always arises again, don’t we have enough people in the country who’d also be capable here, with corresponding guidance and so on, or what’s actually going wrong with us, that we now have to bring people in from outside, so to speak, or have to think about it, to regulate the skilled labor shortage again here too. And there are many points here. It would be much too simple to just talk about Germany’s attractiveness or similar. There are so many different aspects that can be observed. Whether that’s the many different companies sitting on their high horse, in inverted commas, even just in selection processes, in application procedures. So the discussion we’re having here, we could also open up the discussion again, whether it should actually be allowed to write an application with the support of AI or not. So these are sometimes discussions we have instead of looking at where we might also be able to rethink here again, so on one hand, and I can really describe this from observations here too. Of course these are all individual cases, and you have to be careful with generalizations, but I can pick up a lot of examples from my own observations that I make and notice, whether that’s in coaching, whether that’s the personal circle of acquaintances and so on, where people are actually willing to go into jobs, and still there’s absolutely no impression that there’s some kind of skilled labor shortage or anything like that. And regardless of whether we’re talking about skilled trades or other areas. On one hand there’s massive searching happening, and actually they want to hire, so to speak. And on the other hand, if you look at the behavior and how applications are handled and so on, applicants keep asking themselves whether there’s really a shortage, because somehow it doesn’t seem to work out with the job. And that’s why there are so many points of connection here, where you can really look at it from different perspectives, and that also shows the complexity of the topics again. It might be a short-term solution to simplify the immigration of skilled workers, but whether that actually represents a solution to the problem we obviously currently have, let’s leave that undecided, and from my point of view it’s actually something to question. Right, and with that I’d like to move into the closing round. If you want to pick up on one point or another again, please do, and then gladly directly connect the closing word for today’s room too. Marc?

I’d like to respond to Jürgen again, because he said, we have no way to change anything, I understand what you mean, dear Jürgen, we have no way to change anything. I’d like to emphasize again, for me fear is a bad advisor. We have the possibility, it’s not all black and white, it’s gray, and I’m incredibly glad to be able to live in a country like Germany. You’ll certainly see it that way too. We have very, very many smart minds, and we just need to look at things and consider them from all possible sides, as Yasemin just said, and ask other questions. With other questions we come to new answers. I don’t know the answer yet. I would have liked to give a clever answer today, but if it were that simple, we’d already have a clever answer, and then we’re back at the topic of education and exchange, and maybe also responsibility. Each of us individually can take responsibility. We might not be able to change the big picture, but if everyone just changes one percent, that adds up to a lot too.

Yes, thank you, thank you so much, Jürgen.

Yes, dear Marc, now please relieve me of this, because that’s a burden you’re putting on me, that I might have said we couldn’t change anything. So that’s a statement, you can bet your life on this, that will never come from me like that. I’m sorry if the impression arose that I said that, or that it really slipped out of me. I’m of exactly the opposite opinion, namely change begins with us. And I’m increasingly grateful to you for that, Yasemin, that you obviously pick up topics for me too, that connect to what Marc said, his topic of taboo boundaries, that’s the first thing, and that’s where personal change begins for me, that you freely stand up and say, this needs to be talked about, and there damn well needs to be an exchange on a factual basis too, with the aim of finding a solution, and not driving a conflict forward in some form. And if I want the former, then it requires open-ended communication and mutual respect. And that’s always the highlight in this room, and thanks to you all for that, and a nice day, and looking forward to tomorrow. Thank you.

I never do this otherwise, dear Yasemin. Just very briefly, I appreciate you, dear Jürgen, I apologize here in the room if I misunderstood that. I know, I underline everything you said, and I know that you didn’t mean it that way either. It was just important for me to say fundamentally, fear is a bad advisor. Sorry, dear Yasemin.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. I think a lot came together again. Nice perspectives, examples that were opened up today, to really look at things from different perspectives again too. And I’m really looking forward to the room tomorrow. Self-inflicted immaturity? Question mark. I picked up the term, I don’t remember exactly anymore whether it was in the expert talk or the authors’ breakfast. In any case, Dr. Franz Hütter used it, and I love the term at this point. So I’d like to look together with you tomorrow at what self-inflicted immaturity is, and to what extent we contribute to it individually as well as societally, that’s the question we’ll deal with tomorrow in this context. And I’m really curious where the room develops tomorrow. And accordingly you’re all very warmly invited to join again tomorrow morning at 8. I’m looking forward to it. Wishing you all the best. See you tomorrow. Ciao.