|
I don't know where you got the idea that appointing ministers had anything to do with qualifications. It's all about distributing them fairly across a wide range of regional party chapters.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Torrannor posted:What is wrong with Ursula being Minister of Defense? I'm asking as a unashamed lefty who hates the CDU, but is she any less qualified than de Maizière? There is basically nothing wrong, but no one is expecting anything great from her, I guess. It's just like that no one in that position really made something useful in the past couple of years and as such no one likes them beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:What is wrong with Ursula being Minister of Defense? I'm asking as a unashamed lefty who hates the CDU, but is she any less qualified than de Maizière? She is probably not noticeably less qualified than de Maiziere was, though arguably his former offices were somewhat more related to security issues. But Ministers genereally do not have to have experience in their resort, because they are supposed to give out the political direction, while getting their expertise from their resort's personnel. (I'd still argue that Finances and Justice are better off with people who have a practical background in that area.) Realistically, von der Leyen is not going to have that much say with regards to defense policies anyhow. While technically the Chancellor only has competence to give general directions, under Chancellor Merkel, Ministers get micromanaged and especially important issues like defense policies are not going to be decided by a Minister on his own. Ursulua von der Leyen probably can't be criticized for being totally incompetent, but she still is - deservedly - one of the less popular politicians among the younger, internet nerd demographic. Personally, I'm more concerned about her connections to American-grade fundamentalists than about her misguided attempts to leverage internet surveillance for her own political gains. Also, please do not use  smilies when discussing labour and social issues in the future. I do not want to have my favorite smilies associated with the worst Randler fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
You got to love the SPD. Please guess how many years the 6 incoming SPD ministers worked outside of the public sector. Its exactly one year or 2 month per person on average. They studied law (2), political "science" (1), German (1) and to become a teacher ("auf Lehramt") for politics, German and social studies and "Finanzwesen" which means an education for people who want to work for the administration in the sector of taxes and stuff. It's great to see people, who might have a hard time in the job market otherwise, find employment through the SPD. It is truly the party of the worker. GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Randler posted:Also, please do not use Gabriel doesn't have to worry about becoming the worst politician until we finally kick Bayern out of Germany. The covert Nazis from the CSU have him beat. GaussianCopula posted:You got to love the SPD. Please guess how many years the 6 incoming SPD ministers worked outside of the public sector. Its exactly one year or 2 month per person on average. They studied law (2), political "science" (1), German (1) and to become a teacher ("auf Lehramt") for politics, German and social studies and "Finanzwesen" which means an education for people who want to work for the administration in the sector of taxes and stuff. Tired old argument, interesting to see it used in a discussion about German politicians. Teachers have been hugely overrepresented in parliament and government since at least the founding of the GDR. Germany did not fare too bad since World War 2, right? And experience in public institutions prepares you better for public office than working in the private sector, which has radically different requirements, Just think about it. A successful CEO who is brought in to restructure a failing company can use massive lay offs and closing down/selling whole parts of the company, but the new Finance Minister cannot kick out all people of Turkish descent or sell Berlin just because it is not a profitable state. (Just using a stereotype, I don't want to imply anything about our fellow Germans of Turkish descent)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Gabriel doesn't have to worry about becoming the worst politician until we finally kick Bayern out of Germany. The covert Nazis from the CSU have him beat. I was referring to Andrea Nahles, who is scheduled to take over the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You got to love the SPD. Please guess how many years the 6 incoming SPD ministers worked outside of the public sector. Its exactly one year or 2 month per person on average. They studied law (2), political "science" (1), German (1) and to become a teacher ("auf Lehramt") for politics, German and social studies and "Finanzwesen" which means an education for people who want to work for the administration in the sector of taxes and stuff. It's almost as if people enter politics with the intention of being career politicians? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:You got to love the SPD. Please guess how many years the 6 incoming SPD ministers worked outside of the public sector. Its exactly one year or 2 month per person on average. They studied law (2), political "science" (1), German (1) and to become a teacher ("auf Lehramt") for politics, German and social studies and "Finanzwesen" which means an education for people who want to work for the administration in the sector of taxes and stuff. It's not like it's noticeably different for the CDU/CSU. Mostly lawyers, sociology, teachers or at least pedagogy of some kind. The only natural scientists grew up and were educated in the GDR. None of this matters. I'll be worried when the people working in the ministries don't have a background that qualifies them to work there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 18:06
|
|
Ghost Farts posted:It's not like it's noticeably different for the CDU/CSU. Mostly lawyers, sociology, teachers or at least pedagogy of some kind. The only natural scientists grew up and were educated in the GDR. Lets have a look at the CDU ministers/chancelor: Wanka studied math Merkeld studied physics von der Leyen studied medicine Gröhe, Schäuble studied law. If you look at CSU ministers, its very remarkable they either have extended private sector experience or studied economics/business administration. The reason why you have a very high number of public sector employees in (German) politics is first and probably most importantly job security. They are guaranteed to get back into their old job if they are not elected without any problems, something that is not a given for private sector employees. Furthermore the pay in German politics is probably not good enough to lure high quality private sector talent into those jobs. GaussianCopula fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
I don't see why a private business background is something desirable. Running a government and running a company are different. Just like running the government is different to running a household. Having studied and having past experience in public administration and government on the other hand are more desireable. Edit: And the CSU has so many influential people with a business background, because you need money and business friends to buy yourself power in the CSU. The CSU is the embodiment of corruption. All the wheelers and dealers are in the CSU and their amigos, too. Lucy Heartfilia fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
I don't really see why it's apparently a major revelation that politicians on the left would favor public sector backgrounds while those on the right would favor the private sector. It seems to make perfect sense to me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
http://www.regensburg-digital.de/urmann-und-collegen-porno-pranger-kanzlei-unterliegt-in-musterprozess/05072013/ I hope their other cases get a similar judge.  Edit: Actually just saw that that article is really old, but still good to see those copyright trolls lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Apart from the already mentioned ministers, it's also interesting that MdB Aydan Özoğuz (SPD) will become state secretary responsible for integration. Interesting factoid about her: Her brothers founded one of Germany's leading Islamist websites and are under domnestic intelligence surveillance. But I'm sure the SPD knows what it's doing and this will never become an issue to be used against SPD integration policies by disgruntled CDU members.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Actually, yeah, this seems to indicate that the SPD indeed knows what it's doing. Nobody has been more effective at sabotaging the SPD than the SPD. This seems like a continuation of that proud tradition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Leading Islamist website is a reason for concern. Being surveilled by domestic intelligence on the other hand says pretty much nothing. I don't trust the judgment of people who left the NSU alone for so long while wasting my tax money spying on innocent citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Being surveiled by domestic intelligence... like obvious security risk Gregor Gisy? (While NOT observing Wagenknecht??) Considering how much to the right our intelligence services skew I am not terribly concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
To be fair, Gisy is a confirmed Stasi snitch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:To be fair, Gisy is a confirmed Stasi snitch. To be fair, Wagenknecht is literally a communist dreaming of a revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
Riso posted:To be fair, Gisy is a confirmed Stasi snitch. So they are afraid he is...going to spy on people? Or give info to the russians or what? Makes no sense IMO. Is the surveillance of Gysi recent or from early 90s?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:To be fair, Wagenknecht is literally a communist dreaming of a revolution. As far as I know she has pretty much always held that establishing a socialist system is possible under the Grundgesetz and thus a revolution isn't necessary. If you have any specific quotes I'm not aware of, I'm all ears though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
This talk of evil leftist career politicians is giving me flashbacks to the wonderful world of American AM talk radio. From my cursory searches the CDU people are career politicians too, getting a math degree or whatever doesn't count. It has very little to do with left vs right, it's just the way things work in countries with tens or hundreds of millions of poeple. Of course, to make the AM radio hosts happy we can just staff the government entirely with former bankers and executives, and not ever allow the evil icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
botany posted:As far as I know she has pretty much always held that establishing a socialist system is possible under the Grundgesetz and thus a revolution isn't necessary. If you have any specific quotes I'm not aware of, I'm all ears though. Indeed. Capitalism isn't part of the Grundgesetz after all. There is no constitutional reason for Germany to have a capitalist economic system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Indeed. Capitalism isn't part of the Grundgesetz after all. There is no constitutional reason for Germany to have a capitalist economic system. While the constitution does not explicitly require capitalism, implementing and enforcing a non-capitalistic economy system is impossible under the current set of constitutional rights. Changing the constitutional rights to a degree where communism might become a reality might not be possible under the Grundgesetz either. Implementing socialism or communism would require constitutional changes to at the very least articles 9 and 14; probably to 2 and 11 as well. Central Planning on a Federal level might even run contrary to the non-changeable parts of the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Never saw a problem in some ~unpractical~ careers from some politicians. To be honest Gysi is a pretty funny guy from the Left and he's actually kicking some lazy butts in the parliament. I don't really care about what he did since it wasn't that evil. However Wagenknecht is sometimes a bit more complicated. Lucy Heartfilia posted:Indeed. Capitalism isn't part of the Grundgesetz after all. There is no constitutional reason for Germany to have a capitalist economic system. In my opinion Germany already is some kind of 80%-socialistic-republic with a relatively healthy mix from socialism, capitalism and communism regarding basic social features German law provides, such as mandatory insurance, social insurance, educational system, bank rescues, Hartz IV etc. And as far as I can see no one really has a problem with that, especially the Grundgesetz/Bundesverfassungsgericht.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Randler posted:While the constitution does not explicitly require capitalism, implementing and enforcing a non-capitalistic economy system is impossible under the current set of constitutional rights. Changing the constitutional rights to a degree where communism might become a reality might not be possible under the Grundgesetz either. Implementing socialism or communism would require constitutional changes to at the very least articles 9 and 14; probably to 2 and 11 as well. Central Planning on a Federal level might even run contrary to the non-changeable parts of the constitution. That presumes a fairly specific version of socialism that may or may not be what Wagenknecht understands it to be. You can have a socialist state that runs on a (highly regulated) market, rather than being centrally planned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This talk of evil leftist career politicians is giving me flashbacks to the wonderful world of American AM talk radio. From my cursory searches the CDU people are career politicians too, getting a math degree or whatever doesn't count. It has very little to do with left vs right, it's just the way things work in countries with tens or hundreds of millions of poeple. Of course, to make the AM radio hosts happy we can just staff the government entirely with former bankers and executives, and not ever allow the evil Everyone who made a career as politician is a career politician. However, I'd still trust someone more who has at least a little bit of experience in the real world over someone who spend their entire life in a school or other government institutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Randler posted:While the constitution does not explicitly require capitalism, implementing and enforcing a non-capitalistic economy system is impossible under the current set of constitutional rights. Changing the constitutional rights to a degree where communism might become a reality might not be possible under the Grundgesetz either. Implementing socialism or communism would require constitutional changes to at the very least articles 9 and 14; probably to 2 and 11 as well. Central Planning on a Federal level might even run contrary to the non-changeable parts of the constitution. I thought there were forms of at least socialism that don't require a command economy? And private property and means of production are not synonymous. Also, I don't see why it's necessary to force people to study certain things or take certain jobs. And some degrees like medicine are already heavily restricted. And nobody has a problem with that. I think we can agree that a very strict command economy with no freedom of occupation is not possible in Germany though. Edit: And I wouldn't want a system like that either. ... Well, maybe if super-intelligent computers would do all the planning and telling people what job they'll both like and be good at. Lucy Heartfilia fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Nobnob posted:In my opinion Germany already is some kind of 80%-socialistic-republic with a relatively healthy mix from socialism, capitalism and communism regarding basic social features German law provides, such as mandatory insurance, social insurance, educational system, bank rescues, Hartz IV etc. And as far as I can see no one really has a problem with that, especially the Grundgesetz/Bundesverfassungsgericht. The gap between rich and poor is wider than it's ever been, Hart IV is an incredibly regressive piece of legislature that has done more than its fair share to exascerbate income inequality, and we're seeing a strong trend towards underemployment rather than unemployment, which is actually a bad thing. Fun fact: last year the income inequality between men and women actually fell a percentage point -- because poor men are earning even less, slowly regressing towards the level of income that women are at already. Some loving socialist utopia this country is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Randler posted:While the constitution does not explicitly require capitalism, implementing and enforcing a non-capitalistic economy system is impossible under the current set of constitutional rights. Changing the constitutional rights to a degree where communism might become a reality might not be possible under the Grundgesetz either. Implementing socialism or communism would require constitutional changes to at the very least articles 9 and 14; probably to 2 and 11 as well. Central Planning on a Federal level might even run contrary to the non-changeable parts of the constitution. Art. 146 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
And since we're talking about the Grundgesetz:quote:Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen. e X posted:Art. 146 We really should make bets when that will happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:I thought there were forms of at least socialism that don't require a command economy? And private property and means of production are not synonymous. Also, I don't see why it's necessary to force people to study certain things or take certain jobs. And some degrees like medicine are already heavily restricted. And nobody has a problem with that. I guess it depends on where your treshold for socialism is. For the average American, Germany and European Union would probably be socialism. For my understanding, an economic system is only socialistic once it no longer fits under the broadest definition of capitalism, which describes on principle private ownership of the means of production and distribution of economic goods by the market. BabyFur Denny posted:Everyone who made a career as politician is a career politician. However, I'd still trust someone more who has at least a little bit of experience in the real world over someone who spend their entire life in a school or other government institutions. Do you mean political offices or do you really think that people working in the public sector are not working in the real world? e X posted:Art. 146 If you have to make a new constitution, your system does not work under the Grundgesetz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
botany posted:The gap between rich and poor is wider than it's ever been, Hart IV is an incredibly regressive piece of legislature that has done more than its fair share to exascerbate income inequality, and we're seeing a strong trend towards underemployment rather than unemployment, which is actually a bad thing. Fun fact: last year the income inequality between men and women actually fell a percentage point -- because poor men are earning even less, slowly regressing towards the level of income that women are at already. Some loving socialist utopia this country is. I've never stated there wouldn't be a gap between the rich and poor, especially in highly industrialized countries like Germany. Additionally I said "some kind of 80%-socialism", not socialistic utopia. Also I wouldn't mark a big gap between rich and poor people as a socialistic/communistic feature either. It's not like there wasn't and isn't a gap in socialistic systems as well. To the contrary, there were stark differences between some classes of population in the UDSSR and China as well - North Korea is another example. I said some ideas and concepts in Germany are based on classic socialistic mindset and as such, it is "social" or "socialistic" if you want to put a difference in it. Edit: Randler posted:I guess it depends on where your treshold for socialism is. For the average American, Germany and European Union would probably be socialism. For my understanding, an economic system is only socialistic once it no longer fits under the broadest definition of capitalism, which describes on principle private ownership of the means of production and distribution of economic goods by the market. Goons Are Gifts fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
e X posted:Art. 146 http://www.krr-faq.net/volksbe.php it starts with the reichsbürger stuff, but gets into the specifics of why art. 146 GG is meaningless later on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Randler posted:I guess it depends on where your treshold for socialism is. For the average American, Germany and European Union would probably be socialism. For my understanding, an economic system is only socialistic once it no longer fits under the broadest definition of capitalism, which describes on principle private ownership of the means of production and distribution of economic goods by the market. Nah it doesn't require elimination of the market, and depending on your point of view you could say it also doesn't require strict ownership of means of production. Other people say different, but I don't really see it as a strict ideology, more of a school of thought with degrees that can still be rightfully called socialist. What I take from it is a bunch of loosely connected analyses and critiques of political economy, and I don't agree that it's an all or nothing, "if some arbitrary standard of worker ownership of production isn't met then it's worthless, throw it all out", thing. I think it's pretty much correct in it's criticism and analyses, but I don't know if worker ownership is actually necessary to fix the problems with the system. Those analyses being that capitalism, ie private ownership of productive assets leads inevitably to concentration of that ownership among a few people, and this has consequences for everyone else's well being, that markets fail often, in fact really often, and pretty much have to be messed with by outside forces to function properly, that economic growth and technological advancement does not necessarily benefit everyone, because it will all be owned by some super rich dude if that's the way the numbers work out(and it is), and that a better definition of freedom is agency and and opportunity to lead a fulfilled life instead of carefully constructed, on paper negative freedoms to maintain ownership of stuff. So far the solutions that can be broadly classed as social democratic, like nationalization of monopolies, financial regulation, generous welfare, labor unions, etc, seem to me to work pretty well and I'm not sure how much more is necessary, but I do think those remedies flow directly from the original socialist analyses, unlike some people who insist it's not real socialism or whatever. Certainly it's not the strictest interpretation, but like I said I think there are degrees. I will say that lots of self identified socialists that I've met do basically think of it as 'everyone is equal', or some variation thereof. I think that may have to do with the right being very happy to make that the definition of socialism. I don't know if I'd want a government run entirely by the Linke, say, but I'd probably vote for them now because I think we need to move in that direction at least for now. So there's a wall of text. Not sure what I was trying to accomplish, but there it is anyways. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
We had a government run entirely by the Linke for forty years, and it wasn't too popular with the people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
except that it wasn't run by Die Linke
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
Teron D Amun posted:except that it wasn't run by Die Linke
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Same poo poo, different name. Please tell us of all the West German union officials in the GDR government
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:We had a government run entirely by the Linke for forty years, and it wasn't too popular with the people. Maybe that's a little bit too easy. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:We had a government run entirely by the Linke for forty years, and it wasn't too popular with the people. So unpopular was the SED, that nobody in East Germany ever voted for the SPD or the Linke ever again, transforming the East into a CDU stronghold for years to come...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 15:52
|
|