Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: is inflation itself a quiet form of expropriation, and would you still back redistribution once you realize it might mean you? In Room #893 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into a near-empty room almost closed for lack of speakers, the €3,850 net income line that makes you “rich” in Germany, Dutch farmers squeezed by climate targets, and why a €5,000-for-everyone reset probably wouldn’t change who ends up with more. 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 the topic of expropriation, and would like to talk about what forms of expropriation we actually know, and to what extent expropriation plays a role in the context of a societal transformation, so to speak. So is that maybe even necessary in some form? In recent days we’ve repeatedly had the term redistribution in the room too. And especially when we talk about redistribution, it makes sense to look at this term expropriation too, to open up connections from different perspectives too. Basically we can start with, what actually falls under expropriation, so the definition, and what forms exist, what’s known to us, and how can we observe and classify the developments here too. That’s what we want to talk about together today. In that sense you’re all very warmly invited to join, get into the exchange, and pick up things you’ve observed yourselves, things you can bring in yourselves, provided with various examples, to open up different perspectives on the topic under the overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with brAIn, and gain new insights together in exchange here. Right, and accordingly again the reminder that the room is recorded the whole time today too. Anyone who joins automatically agrees that the whole thing will be published too. And right, then 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 of course has, as usual, the opportunity to use the chat too, and bring in various aspects here too. And then I can see that I pick that up at one point or another too, if it fits and isn’t already answered in the chat, etc. Right, basically we’ve observed quite a lot in recent years. And there are so, so many aspects here. We just talked about basic income, for example. Also these terms, unconditional, does that even make sense. We’ve woven in terms like redistribution, which is obviously necessary to be able to cover certain costs that exist. We’ve had a lot of Corona measures in recent years, to counteract the pandemic. All these are very different factors. We could open up countless more that lead to costs rising on one hand, so to speak, and on the other hand not enough money coming in through taxes etc., which of course means we need to look at how we deal with that, and how maybe a certain redistribution could take place, to manage and finance certain things that are planned, in inverted commas, whether that goes in the direction of climate protection or otherwise. And that’s basically what’s behind it. And we can now just look at what expropriation actually means and what forms of it exist. We could also look at it historically, and maybe make similarities or distinctions too, to then look further in exchange. Accordingly I’m really curious, and who’d like to join first, so to speak. And then we can start with the first approximations and look together in exchange where the room develops accordingly. In that sense I’ll mute myself briefly now and just see who of you would like to join first, to turn the monologue into a dialogue.
And dear ones, let’s make sure we don’t let too much time pass, because I think here too we have a huge topic we can talk about, with a certain complexity, so it would be a shame if we simply, toward the end, so to speak, because the room is always limited to a maximum of 60 minutes, have to cut one thing or another short, in inverted commas, because I think once the first points come together here, a nice, lively exchange will be able to take place. So accordingly really with the most diverse thoughts. It’s not about being an expert in the field, but about bringing in what you’ve followed, what you’ve picked up, here in the exchange too, and enriching it through different perspectives, through the various impulses too. And we can talk about all kinds of different things in this context too. If I just pick up a first definition from the internet, then we have the description that it’s about, among other things, for example the withdrawal of property. That’s probably also the most obvious thing, what many think of when expropriation is talked about. But quite specifically, that’s also why today’s question is phrased this way, what forms of expropriation do we actually know? Because usually we immediately think of real estate or similar, and maybe also think we’re not affected by that, when it comes to it, because we might not own real estate ourselves, for one or another of you. But if you look more closely and consider what would all fall into this area, then it becomes clear that there’s actually significantly more that can be counted here too. And yes, and about, I mean, on one hand we pay taxes, on the other hand we have inflation, for example. And because inflation, the higher the inflation, that’s also a form of expropriation, so to speak, you could say. Because ultimately, for example, because I have less purchasing power, still get the same salary or similar, have the same money available, but even if it’s increased, and if it deviates from the rate or the level of inflation, then we already have a first discrepancy here too, that leads to me having less purchasing power, being able to do less with my money, being able to invest less and so on, which can also represent a form of expropriation. On the other hand there are legal developments. I don’t know to what extent you’ve followed that. Those are also aspects we can pick up here. One or another of you might have followed to some extent that there have also been legal adjustments with regard to the Equalization of Burdens Act. And here a term was accordingly exchanged too. And with this term it’s ultimately about the fact that previously it was about war victims, compensation and similar, because the law has already existed for a long time. And now it’s basically been exchanged with corresponding references, so to speak links, in inverted commas, so that it’s now about social compensation. So the word war victims’ welfare was replaced by social compensation. And that of course makes the whole thing relatively broad. So social compensation, you then have to look again at what all falls under that, so to speak. That’s then referred to other clauses. And here quite “wide doors” open up too, what can all reach in there or be counted in there. And this law comes into effect from 01.01.2024. So that’s basically already decided. And that’s why it makes sense to look at this more closely and get into exchange and see what that means. And at the same time it’s not just Germany, but we may also look especially EU-wide at what developments there are, because all the climate targets, for example, that are defined, that are then also valid EU-wide, it’s also about looking at how we can meet the certain figures that are prescribed as framework conditions here, has led, for example, and you’ll probably have followed this in the news too, that there have also been demonstrations etc. especially in Holland for example in this regard, because those who can’t meet their figures, which has led to the government, in this sense, and here the affected parties are especially the farmers, where certain requirements now apply, so to speak, and compensation is being opened up here too and so on, so that these figures, which need to be met EU-wide, as guidelines that are prescribed, can be realized, and accordingly a lot has happened here too. But as I said, I don’t want to do this as a monologue. So look here, what have you followed, what have you seen. It doesn’t have to be about Holland, in inverted commas, but I think it also makes sense to open up such aspects here too, because it’s not just Germany to consider exclusively, but against the background of the developments that certain framework conditions apply EU-wide, certain derivations may automatically be seen from that too, that can also affect Germany, or how Germany then also deals with that accordingly, to be able to meet the requirements that are set from outside here accordingly. And something like what’s “happening” in Holland, in inverted commas, with regard to the farmers, isn’t far-fetched that it could go in a similar direction in Germany too, against the background that a lot of agriculture is done in Germany too. Right, I’m curious now whether that might already be enough impulses for you to really join in. And you know, quarter past, so we’re already at 14 past now, I’ll just look now and otherwise the room will be closed today too. It would be a shame for me with this topic.
Dear ones, I find it really a shame at this point, but if nobody moves to join, to get into the exchange, then I’ll close the room again today too. We talked about cowardice and courage, in inverted commas, in one of the rooms recently too. I can’t judge what exactly it’s due to, but if we of course also pick up such topics, and that leads to nobody joining to talk, which I find very unfortunate, because I think especially the Deep Talk Club has developed so nicely in the direction that we can really pick up topics here free of emotion and shed light on them from different perspectives too. As I said, I can’t judge it, one or another of you might just not be able to speak right now, but if we open up such topics and that leads to a reticent reaction, then we can’t continue at this point, but then also accordingly actually have to close the room, forced to do so. So I’ll gladly start another attempt, one last one, and if while I’m speaking nobody moves to join and get into the exchange, so to speak, then I’ll close the room directly afterward for today too. We planned the topic of expropriation for today. What forms of expropriation do we know, and to what extent does it play a role in the context of a societal transformation? We can open up very, very different subject areas here. On one hand, to look again, expropriation isn’t just when I own real estate or similar and it’s somehow taken away from me by the state for whatever reasons, but expropriation can mean much more too. Here we can think in the direction of inflation, here we can look in the direction of, what’s happening for example in Holland with the farmers right now, where quite a few demonstrations have already taken place too. We’ve also talked about basic income or unconditional basic income. Maybe it would be better to just say basic income or universal basic income. So there are a lot of aspects here that you can actually open up too, to talk about. We’re currently following discussions all the way to whether it should be regulated, for example how many square meters of living space people should have available, because there’s a shortage of living space, rental prices are shooting through the roof and so on. So we can open up so, so many diverse different topics in this context too.
A wonderful good morning, dear Marc. I’m glad you’re here, because you’re preventing, in inverted commas, together with me now, us closing the room.
Good morning to the group, nice to start the week with you. Yes, I have mixed feelings about this room too, because with the word expropriation, what first goes through my head is this Robin Hood idea, which in my view has never worked, and I’d like to start with storytelling and with a conscious manipulation, to make that clear to you. Depending on, I again assume, depending on which question we ask, we’ll find different answers. If one percent of a group, we’re a group and one percent of this group now has to comply with 99 percent, how would we find that? Then I already know the result, because that’s simply a manipulative question, then 99 hands go up and say, or rather, we find that unfair, and what I’m getting at, now I’ve lost my thread, what I’m getting at is that wealth, if we want to talk about expropriation, so right at the start, of course there’s expropriation, the normal expropriation we know, that nobody has anything against, because it’s simply anchored in our constitution that way. If a highway is built, or if it’s about lignite, and a family house stands on a plot under which important deposits are located, then I have no chance. Then the common good applies. The common good is then greater than my own good. If I just see the word expropriation and see it in a different context, namely with redistribution, then you need to know that 1% or 1.5% of the population actually only, measured against the 99 percent that remain, owns a large part of the capital and wealth, mostly in the form of real estate. And I find that totally difficult, if we were to have a discussion about expropriation, whether that’s the sense of justice, then again different, than when you then discuss with someone. So the sense of justice would be like, saying, well, that person has more. Then they can share, so an expropriation, so we all do better. And they say, but I only make up one percent, why should I share something there? You’re much more. And at the same time this statistic, which always comes up in the question, when are you considered rich, when are you considered wealthy and so on. And then in this discussion emotions inevitably erupt. And that makes it so difficult. But basically, to get back to what Jürgen also does, to get to your title for this room. Expropriation, yes it happens and it’s also anchored per se by the constitution.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and you’ve already opened up various aspects. I talked briefly before, I think you weren’t in the room yet, that there can be many aspects or forms of expropriation. We often think of something like, for example, a withdrawal of, especially real estate owners or real estate ownership is certainly affected too. But if you say, I don’t own any real estate, so I’m not affected, or basically I find it quite good if a certain redistribution takes place. But if we don’t just look at this redistribution idea, in the sense of taking something away from one to give more to another, but also look at it from this perspective at the same time, for example. I brought up the example with inflation. Inflation is also a form of expropriation, if you think about it carefully. Because there it’s not that the state now, so to speak, legally, with some legal regulation, somehow takes away property or something, or makes sure someone belonging to the 1% pays somehow more taxes or similar, but it affects everyone equally. We’re all affected by inflation. The higher the inflation, the less purchasing power I have, for example, the less possibility I have, not just with shopping, to choose the corresponding food or consumer goods or such, but also thought toward investments and so on. That means, the less money I have available, because for example wages aren’t adjusted in the same way to the same degree and similar. You might have followed this in recent weeks and months too, that there have also been discussions at various points about wage adjustments and so on, but then the results that are announced and discussed aren’t one-to-one equivalent to, for example, the level of inflation. That means, even if adjustments take place here, ultimately there’s still less money available than in the past. And that’s, if we say that’s also a form of expropriation, then it doesn’t just affect, in the sense of redistribution, exclusively those who already have a lot, in inverted commas, but then it’s suddenly located on a very broad level, so to speak too. And I’m curious, Marc, what you say about that.
Yes that’s true, there’s also another aspect, namely the people we sometimes complain about, the politicians or our state, our government, and inflation, you just mentioned inflation, inflation also contributes, among other things, to the debt level looking less high compared to gross domestic product. That means, inflation for us, for you and me and everyone here in the room is bad, because we get less for our money. At the same time the state reduces its debt too, and that’s also at least one point of view you have to mention. There are also political interests connected with that, that I can minimize my debt through inflation.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. And besides these perspectives we’ve now basically already opened up, I also mentioned the Equalization of Burdens Act earlier. I don’t know to what extent you’ve followed that or heard about it. That’s also something that keeps coming up in this context in discussions, because a change has already been made here. What effects that’ll have in the future, we’ll probably only see when it’s time. But the fact is that a change was made here, in which specifically a term was exchanged. Namely the word “war victims’ welfare” was replaced by social compensation, and here accordingly there are also references in turn to other laws, where you then have to read further or delve deeper, what that then actually means or can mean. And this law comes into effect from 01.01.2024. That means, there are changes here, and they also lead in many places to a certain concern, whether that’s justified or not. You can look at that with various aspects and consider what all that could mean in the future too. At the same time I pointed out again that we should of course not only look with regard to Germany, but may also pick up aspects like the EU or EU regulations here too in this consideration. Because there are certain things that are also decided EU-wide, and then the individual countries, to translate these framework conditions that are prescribed into implementation, may also specifically look again at their own country, how do we manage that. And especially with regard to Holland I opened up the aspect again that what’s happening there with the farmers, we might have followed that in the news, or taken a look at it, that certain compensation payments have been opened up here too. But ultimately it’s about the basis with which the farmers earn their money, that they can no longer continue in this form in the future to some extent, or a change is required here, because otherwise they can’t meet the prescribed figures. Accordingly it’s hit the “farmers.” But if we look and think further, what does it actually look like with the figures with regard to Germany? Can we meet them, can we not meet them? Would that be possible in a different way? But at least it becomes clear or visible here what dimensions this can ultimately take on too, not must, but can. And accordingly this certainly needs to be considered too, that it’s not just a discussion to be had with regard to Germany, but the connections need to be considered here again too, and the effects, if we also think as the EU at this point, for example. Would Marc maybe like to continue on this?
Yes, I’ve found my thread again, namely what I wanted to say earlier, why I find it so difficult with such topics. And I’ve learned this through the Deep Talk Club, that storytelling happens everywhere, an influence, and that the topics are so complex, and that if you don’t approach them, which I’ve learned from Jürgen, thank you Jürgen, to look at the terminology and then question exactly what that means, so many emotions come up. And what I wanted to tell you at the beginning, sorry, that this numbers game confuses me myself. If we now said, I’m in the room, we’re discussing an expropriation here for example, if we talk about redistribution and someone simply polarizes and says, wouldn’t it be fair for the super-rich, so for the rich to give up more, so that everything is distributed equally. Then you’d get high approval. But you’d first have to define who’s super-rich. And I find that quite interesting. I read a Spiegel survey this morning, where certain questions are left out in the surveys, where certain questions are asked in a targeted way. And such a discussion looks completely different if you say, okay friends, super-rich, you’re super-rich from 10 million euros in wealth. That affects 1.5 percent, and if we now, so that was my point, if we now talked about an expropriation in the form of redistribution, then 99 percent of people decide about the 1.5 percent and tell them what to do. And the nice thing is, with polarization and in politics, emotionally, if I structure the speech that way, those who have more can share and give to those who have less. Completely agreed, you get high approval. But if you say, that only affects a group that makes up 1.5 percent, then that no longer has anything to do with democracy. And you could go into every topic that way. And I’ve brought something else for you, because that’s also always underestimated in discussions, when you say, well, I’m not super-rich. That’s right. I personally am also not super-rich, because I don’t earn a fortune of 10 million. As a single person you’re considered rich in Germany, that’s based on median income, and if you live alone, as a single person, no children in the house, and earn over 3850 euros net per month, then you belong to the better earners and count as rich. And if we talk about a redistribution, about an expropriation, for example of the rich, that would affect every one of us who has over 3850 euros net. And then it’s totally interesting, then there are surveys, that ask people, exactly what you mentioned, dear Yasemin, to say, are you then willing, dear Marc, to give up a bit more of your 3850 euros that you might earn, then the results look completely different. Then it suddenly affects me myself and not just the super-rich feelings of 25 percent, which isn’t 25 percent, but only 1.5 percent of the population.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much, and then the question also arises, I find. So we often talk about redistribution, justice and so on and so forth. At the same time we may also look at it this way. I mean, we already pay quite high taxes in general, in inverted commas. So we’re well ranked there in comparison too. And given that we pay such high taxes, also in everyday life and with everything we do, the question arises, is the problem then also at this point that not enough money comes in, or what exactly is the problem, or is the money maybe simply managed wrongly, in inverted commas, and made accessible again, and invested or processed at certain points, brought back into circulation, and that this, so to speak, wrong decisions in dealing with the revenue, so to speak state revenue, that this ultimately leads to us somehow talking again and again about needing more money to come in somehow, or more taxes, or that, well, this justice and so on, here too we’re back at this aspect of storytelling too actually, because the moment we keep, in inverted commas, complaining about the super-rich. So we can gladly talk about justice quite generally, but here too we may not lose sight of the connections. Because whenever these discussions come up, we also need to consider, in inverted commas, that precisely the super-rich always have the possibility to take alternative paths too. That means, that’s maybe also one of the reasons why too little has been done here in recent years, because it otherwise always poses the risk. It doesn’t help us either if we take corresponding measures and the super-rich then simply evade them. Whether that’s with big companies changing their headquarters, for example, deciding to go to a different country instead, or similar. Exactly the same can certainly be observed with the super-rich at this point too. And the question is, how helpful is that then at all, in inverted commas, or effective at this point, even if the idea of justice is behind it, which is basically fine in principle. But is that even effective, approaching this topic this way? Or don’t further perspectives need to be opened up too? And then it of course becomes interesting to consider again, yes, how is money that’s available actually used? As I said, we already pay incredibly high taxes basically in Germany. So why can’t we actually manage with that, in inverted commas? And then we’d be having the discussion on a completely different level already. Marc, what do you say about that?
I can fully underline that. And I always find it incredibly, I really find it extremely difficult today in this room. Because I’ve decided for myself that I call it bar-room discussion. Bar-room discussion is when I talk about something and haven’t read anything about it. The statistic could be wrong. But if I can’t refer to facts, but let my emotions get the upper hand, then I feel uncomfortable. And personally, I can’t prove it, but that’s what I perceive, so individually perceive, is that this thing with spending taxes has something to do with responsibility. And I’ll just claim that I can well imagine that it’s always easier to handle money that doesn’t belong to you yourself. Others pay for that after all. And that then, this is an assumption, I can’t prove it, that you’re then possibly more generous with spending money that I don’t have to earn myself, that I also don’t have to be responsible for myself, than if, as an entrepreneur, I invest in a factory and know the factory is in the wrong place. The factory has the wrong machines. That means the end for me, the end of my income and the end of my existence. And a nice example of that, to get back into politics, was also the toll fee thing, that it’s sometimes incomprehensible to me, when sums are spent that are decided by a minister without… And then that’s just done. And the worst thing that can happen is that they lose their job in the short term and are then no longer a minister, but sit somewhere else as a board member or advisory board or wherever. And that… And that… You have to discuss that too, dear Yasmine. I’m also observing this with concern right now, that people simply resign, what you can do about it. I don’t have a clever answer either. Reporting, education, keep putting your finger on the wound. What are you doing with our money? When it comes to politics, where does that go? Was that sensible or not? And you clearly notice now, this won’t be the only reason, but that it’s also a danger for our democracy. Taking responsibility also means becoming aware of what’s done with the funds, because many people simply have the feeling they can’t move anything anymore, they can’t do anything anymore, they can’t undertake anything anymore, maybe also, I already said this this week, put a checkmark by someone I’m not so satisfied with or where I feel uncomfortable. And there too, taking responsibility means also protecting our democracy and not simply deciding. And I believe this sense of justice, exactly what you mentioned, dear Yasmin, also leads to many people feeling treated unfairly, and in such political discussions it’s often polarized, that means it’s not spoken about facts and saying, dear Marc, that’s not how it is, this much money flows there. So feelings are just always picked up, because a feeling always contributes more easily to moving us left or right, and I don’t mean politics now, I just mean having some opinion, to move to one side. And it’s always easier to work with feelings than to work with facts.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Yes absolutely. And at the same time we can still look at a lot of what’s discussed in the news, so to speak, what’s discussed in politics, picked up by the news. And it’s less about looking at it with gut feeling, but really opening up different questions too, because we always talk about how different questions, or the quality of the questions, also contributes to finding new and solution-oriented answers again, at least options, further options that are opened up, and not letting ourselves be misled by certain discussions that somehow get out of hand, and that’s why it makes sense to look at it from different perspectives too, and regardless of how deep the individual is, so to speak, in the individual topics here in the rooms, or knows the statistics or knows the figures, it’s also about opening up different perspectives in exchange, to generate new questions for example, for new thoughts in this context too. And especially these new perspectives, that you maybe haven’t even thought about before, they ultimately also help make a kind of emotion regulation, because we’re then able to look at certain topics not just exclusively through one lens, but through different lenses too, to grasp the complexity behind it again, and to be able to approach the topics with new questions too. And accordingly I’d like to warmly invite everyone in the room again, please join, and maybe you have one thing or another where you say, that wasn’t addressed at all, or I see that completely differently, or, and that we can really open up more perspectives here again too. As I said, it’s not about being an expert in this field, but we very often have this, that we’re not experts in many areas at all, and still it’s important that we look at these topics, not just consume, but bring in our own thoughts, generate new perspectives in exchange, and approach these topics. Because if, in inverted commas, we always just lean back everywhere and say, I can’t judge that, I’m not an expert, then it becomes difficult too, because ultimately, how is our democracy built, that basically the people also have a say to some extent, and also need to have an opinion, and may also stand up for it, so to speak, to bring about, support, prevent certain decisions here too. And then at this point, my very personal opinion, even with topics where we feel, oh, I’m not so deep into that, that shouldn’t lead to us leaning back and saying, I can’t speak on that at all, but precisely this exchange, or precisely this deepening, precisely opening up these new perspectives, enables you to form opinions too, or adjust, expand new or previous opinions, look at it through a new, through another lens and similar. Marc, maybe that helps you at this point.
Yes, I unfortunately don’t know, we once had a really great authors’ breakfast, dear Yasemin, that was so sustainable, but I unfortunately don’t know who that was. And it was about the topic consuming versus investing, and I would have wished that had also been a topic with me in my family, consuming. I know money is important, but either there’s money or there isn’t money, but that we’d talked about it in our family, what the difference between consuming and investing is, and I found it particularly notable that this author, whom you had as a guest, at some point told the story that if we set everything to zero, that means if we now had the same starting basis again for everyone with 5000 euros or 10,000 euros, that after so and so many years there would again be people who have very, very much, so not inherited, but really through investments and not through inheritance, and there’ll be people who don’t have as much money. And my example, which occurs to me when I look at school, with children, kids sit there and of course they all want to have the newest smartphone or the best one, and then the question is, what do you need the phone for? I want to be called, so I can meet up with Yasemin. Okay, then you also get a phone for 400 euros and not for 1200. And with the rest you could do something else. And this awareness, in my opinion, isn’t discussed in school like that, which I don’t get to see. When I’m in conversation with teachers, they of course defend themselves, which is completely fine, because if you attack someone and don’t formulate it carefully, emotions come up there too. And that doesn’t mean someone is a bad teacher. It means we’re overwhelmed with many topics. Just like I was, or am, with such complex topics here in the room. But that’s where education comes in again. We already had that topic, education in school from the beginning. And then the question isn’t that we exclude children from the start, who then say, I won’t become super-rich anyway, why should I participate in this game? I’ll never be super-rich. That’s not even the question. But if you tell someone, you don’t have to become super-rich, but what can we do, what can we all do, so that it goes well enough for each of us that we have a right to vacation, and can live with dignity, and can buy food, the basic needs, and can move from A to B. You don’t have to be super-rich for that.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you, thank you so much. And that’s a really important aspect you’re bringing up, so financial education ultimately too. And I think you probably mean the authors’ breakfast we had with Dr. Stefan Friedrich, “Günther the Inner Pig-Dog Gets Rich,” an animal wealth book, and I can remember that it was exactly in this context about an example, to relatively simply explain or show where the problems lie, and I think we then even picked up the example, among other things then also in the exchange with, we can observe this, when you win money somewhere for example playing the lottery, or have a chicken-money-win somewhere else, that then too, if you look at it historically, what’s left of this money? That means, even if you were given a million or more overnight, that doesn’t mean I suddenly have completely different possibilities, as long as financial education as a basis is missing, it’ll always happen again and again, if I don’t “get into it” or develop myself further here, that I then don’t know exactly what I can do with it, and ultimately end up back at this starting point again at some point. Dr. Stefan Friedrich actually had an example in his book, like you just described, I don’t remember anymore if the amount was 5000 euros, if you set everything to zero and gave everyone the same starting amount, so to speak, we’d find again that the same people who have more today would probably also again know more to do with it, provided they didn’t just inherit it, but know, so to speak, how it works, in inverted commas, and those who haven’t learned it would spend these 5000 euros again, or whatever it was, on consumption or otherwise, and thereby the idea of a justice or however you want to call it would indeed be established, but it wouldn’t lead to the desired effect or the goal, in inverted commas. And to open up and consider such aspects here too. And accordingly it becomes clear that this educational context is really important here again too. In this area we’re then, among other things, also in financial education. And yes, and it affects all the topics we open up, as becomes clear, that this basis is always the key too, to be able to live self-determined, to be self-efficacious, that I also need this educational idea as a foundation, so to speak, to accompany that at this point. And that of course also applies to topics like this one, for example, when we say we’re talking about expropriation, in inverted commas, as I said, one or another of you might not be able to speak right now, among the others, in inverted commas, who might not dare. I’ll take that out now. But everyone can really ask themselves the question now. So we’ve already had a few rooms that were somewhat hesitant, so to speak. And I think we can also really ask ourselves, for self-reflection, what’s that connected with? So do I only consume what I’m shown in the media, so to speak, and don’t get into these topics at all, then I have difficulties too. That has far-reaching consequences. These are assumptions now, you’re welcome to check that for yourselves too. But if we now think further and spin it further, how does democracy work, how do elections work, how do I decide which party, which party I put my checkmark by and so on. If, with fundamental topics like expropriation etc. etc. etc., now we can pick up so many different room topics, I have the feeling here that I can’t really speak on that, because I actually don’t know much about it, then I find that’s a signal that I may become “active” here too, in inverted commas. And one of the possibilities is to actually use such possibilities or opportunities like in this room, to get into exchange, to approach these topics for myself first, because I have to start somewhere, I’d claim. With that I warmly welcome Erik to our group too, and then we can gladly make cross-connections again too.
Yo, hello. I can address that directly. So I joined the room a bit later, and my first association with the topic of expropriation was on a personal level. So the state takes something away from someone, because that person might no longer be able to take care of something for whatever reason, health-wise, mentally. And then, in the course of this room, also, because it’s really a topic that’s somehow not so much in my focus, and didn’t really have an entry point, and now it’s clearing up a bit, and I also find this aspect really good, to really think about it on such a basis, because the topic can also come up on the table at some point in the political decision-making process. And so for me a few things arise now. I also quickly did a Google search. So expropriation in the sense of the state taking something away from people. It can do that in various ways, with compensation or without compensation, and also for various reasons. So we now had the equal-rights or justice reason in the sense of establishing equal distribution or more equal distribution, or I don’t know exactly what these Dutch protests are about, as far as I understand it now, it’s about climate targets that need to be met, at the expense of, and new laws are somehow now burdening the farmers, which is why they can’t continue their business this way. That would be such a situation with the common good, where it’s even more, so to speak, future and the whole world, and yes, and those are various things where you can really ask yourself, do you find that good, necessary, what are other ways to carry out such expropriations, and a really big field opens up there, where you can really think a lot about it.
Yes, absolutely. Thank you, thank you so much. And yes, so wonderful. You probably also looked in parallel a bit to pick up the terms or the impulses that have already come into the room, and to look at this here. I can confirm that too. That’s exactly what it’s about. So really opening up different examples here, looking, and through the impulses that are then there in the room, really approaching these topics once, and becoming aware of it. And especially this example with Holland and the farmers, you can ask further questions there too. You already said, so is that the right way, in inverted commas, what other possibilities would there be? I find that a wonderful question, and at the same time also to look at what it means if we now put ourselves in the farmers’ situation. It’s also their livelihood at this point, and we also have a lot of farmers living in Germany. And what if similar measures were also taken, in inverted commas? You just see how complex and big these topics ultimately are, and how far-reaching they can be in their consequences too. We can also gladly pick up this aspect from Jürgen. This “what’s it done for and do we even want that?” These are also fundamental questions underlying the whole thing here. And in what form should and can they then also be implemented? Because if we don’t just, well farmers are just one example. I mean, theoretically we could now expand that to all possible professional fields etc. etc. If that ultimately has these effects, then we’re also at this question, what’s the price we may pay for that? Are we willing to do that, or are there also other possibilities, other ways, all the way to, and then we’re at the aspect of climate protection, opening up diverse discussions here too, and looking, is it really all as dramatic as it’s presented. Here too there are very different views, opinions, and also statistical figures. So really questioning this too, and looking at what share humans actually make up, and how much the impact is afterward too. So looking at this critically again too. That doesn’t mean we have to come to different results, but only once I engage with it, deal with it, can I ultimately form an opinion on it, in inverted commas, starting from an awareness, so to speak, that’s created, that I engage with numbers, data, facts too, and am then also able not just to react emotionally, but actually to form an opinion based on facts, in inverted commas. Sabine, I’d also like to bring you in, and then we can gladly look again at whether we want to pick up on different points again, before we move into the closing round for today.
Good morning everyone, exciting topic. I actually wanted to say something that many aren’t so aware of, that if we now, for example, have eight percent inflation, we don’t currently have that, but just as an example, and have a salary increase of eight percent, everyone would first think, then I’ve just compensated for inflation, but that often pushes people into higher tax brackets, and thereby they’re indirectly made poorer. I wanted to mention that with regard to expropriation. That’s because the so-called bracket creep isn’t adjusted, or rarely adjusted, and I think many aren’t so aware of that either. So even if we get high salary increases there, many move up higher and effectively get their pocket picked briefly too. What else occurred to me regarding expropriation was this wish or will to expropriate in Berlin, Monovia. I mean, you have to look back a bit there of course. The state basically messed up by selling all the social housing. And now business enterprises are there and make something out of it. Of course it’s also very short-sighted if I say, I want to fight the capital investment again, the rental apartments need to come, and that doesn’t quite fit together either. Those were my two contributions.
Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. So also two more nice points you’ve opened up. Marc, Eric, would you like to continue here too?
Gladly, Marc. Yes, I think what we haven’t looked at at all yet, if you just take the word expropriation, who does that come from? So does that come from the state, to come back to the Dutch farmers? There’s also the topic that the soils are contaminated with nitrate, which can lead to serious health problems. That means, if it comes from the state, it serves the protection of the general public, that we stay healthy. So expropriation, in inverted commas, can play a great and important, central role in certain topics. If we now talk about expropriation from Marc’s perspective, in the form of taking something away from Marc as a citizen, then the question also arises for me, is the call for expropriation also a call to give up responsibility? Because if I say to the state, hey, you have to help me, I have less and Paul has more, I find that stupid, I find that unfair, so expropriate him. Then I’m pushing the responsibility onto the state, and then I have a problem with the word expropriation, because we may all also take responsibility for ourselves. And then I need to relate the word expropriation once to the context of the common good. So common good means housing for all, health for all and so on, or wealth for all. And those are then already two completely different points and also discussion fields.
Yes absolutely, and ultimately we’re then also back to some extent at the term we’ve often already picked up in recent days too, self-inflicted immaturity. That also has a lot to do with responsibility, for example. So accordingly those are all legitimate aspects that can be opened up here too. And yes, I’d like to look again if you, Erik, Sabine, would like to continue on one point or another. And otherwise, since we have about four minutes left and round off the room at about 60 minutes, we can gladly move into the closing round for today too. The topics build on each other, that means one thing or another that we’ve already addressed here today, even if it’s not conclusive, so to speak, it doesn’t need to be. It should first stimulate thinking, and we have further topics in the coming days that we’ll pick up, which are also connected again, so that we’ll pick up one thing or another at various points again too and continue this exchange accordingly. I’m just looking if there’s a sign, if anyone would like to continue. That doesn’t seem to be the case. Then I’d like to move into the closing round for today. Marc, Erik, Sabine, if you just look at the course of the room today, what are your highlights, or did something in particular give you food for thought, where you say, that may resonate now, maybe set such a highlight for yourself too from the room. Marc.
Highlight, that was what I said at the beginning. Highlight isn’t a highlight for me, but being careful in such rooms in general, when you participate in a discussion, not letting emotions get the upper hand, that a topic doesn’t suddenly just run against politics or just against teachers or just in another direction, but always, as Jürgen also likes to place great value on, staying factual and delivering added value. And because the topic is so complex, as I already said at the beginning, this is such an overwhelming topic with so many ways of looking at it, then you’re completely right. Then, when you want to join such a topic, you first feel like, I really can’t say anything about that, because I simply lack the expertise, and not just the expertise, but I simply lack a bit of something else too. And just stating an opinion, just stating some opinion out of emotions, I find difficult, because opinions polarize, and if my opinion is wrong and not clearly defined for myself, that I really have standing there and say, I have this opinion because, and I can justify that too, then I feel personally uncomfortable, because I don’t want a room or basically a group of people to go in a certain direction just because I have the wrong emotions. Whereby everyone is also responsible for themselves, to correctly evaluate what they’ve heard and then make something of it too. I wish you a great start to the week.
Wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Erik.
Yes, for me various subcategories have now emerged. An intended expropriation, an unintended one, a direct one, an indirect one. Maybe not all of these are expropriations, you could still go into the terminology there. And these are various aspects where I think this can resonate too, and should, how you feel about each of them, and especially, I find it okay now, taking something away from other people, farmers, I’m not a farmer, what would it be like if I were a farmer myself, or a real estate company or whatever. And the other point I also find good as a thought experiment for yourself is this 5000 euro idea, how would I realistically assess myself, would I go up or down, if everyone starts with 5000 euros, and do I like what I get as a result for myself.
Yes wonderful, nice question, exactly. Great, Sabine.
Yes, I can largely follow Marc too. It’s a difficult term, because precisely this term is often used very polarizingly in politics too. And I think it’s always necessary to go really deep here and know the background and also understand the background, to be able to clearly take positions on that too. It was a great topic again, even if it started a bit sluggishly, but there I agree with you, Yasemin, and Marc too, that’s a topic, I don’t think it can be pinned down purely by words, that always comes with emotion, and that’s the dangerous thing. I wish you a nice day.
Yes wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. Yes, and before I round off and also announce what’s coming up tomorrow, I’d like to pick up one more aspect, that with all these considerations and reflections, something quite essential plays a role too, namely, because I also said earlier, for example, EU-wide etc., to also look in comparison, so to speak. Especially because we said, I think, Marc, you said that, that’s also the definition, are the super-rich and so on. That’s always defined by someone, so to speak, and there are also differences between countries here. That means, the same definitions don’t apply either, in inverted commas, or the same parameters we’re talking about in different countries. And especially if we now look with regard to climate protection, that means, the framework conditions prescribed by an EU are indeed the same for all countries, but the individual countries also have different evaluations, from when, for example, they’re classified in class D, E, or otherwise for heating, for example, in inverted commas. And depending on which framework conditions the individual countries have defined and set for themselves, that can then also have different effects on the different countries. Not because the figures aren’t the same for everyone, the basis, the basic principle, is then maybe prescribed by the EU, for example, and applies equally to everyone, but if the figures are handled differently in the countries, and different classifications are made with that, that means, possibly, that for example Germany has to do more to meet certain figures or be able to get into certain classifications, even though another country might have set different figures as parameters and accordingly doesn’t get difficulties here. So this too shows how complex these topics are at this point too. But that’s a nice example to show that it’s not just about recognizing the figures, data for your own country, but also always looking in a comparison here too, and that it’s important to also go into the depths to a certain degree, to even be able to realize and recognize these problems or the challenges that come with them, and to then be able to derive important and relevant questions from that again, and consider what possible solutions could also be. With that I’d like to announce that tomorrow we’ll continue with the room topic “Commanded Climate Protection?” How sensible can a “regionally commanded climate protection” be? What effects does it have in the context of expropriation? Here too, maybe to pick up topics like heat pumps etc. discussions again, all the way to aspects like climate activists and so on. I’m also really curious what you say about that or what thoughts you bring here. Whoever has the time and inclination is also warmly invited, in preparation for the room tomorrow and also the other rooms that will be successively opened, to do a bit of preliminary research on one room or another too. That doesn’t need to take long, but just gather a few thoughts already, to be able to bring those in here too. And that can also be formulated as a question. So it doesn’t always have to represent a statement right away either, to open up this reflection framework in exchange, and to be able to approach the various topics from different perspectives too. In that sense I’m really looking forward to welcoming you here again tomorrow morning at 8, and I’m curious what we’ll bring together on the topic of Commanded Climate Protection? Question mark. Until then. I wish you all the best. Ciao.
