Habeck's modernization suggestions: a step in the wrong direction?

Habeck's modernization suggestions: a step in the wrong direction?

In the middle of economic turbulence and the constant search for a growth boost, Federal Minister Robert Habeck comes into play with a fresh modernization agenda! But while the demands for more efficiency and less bureaucracy like a thread run through the paper, the minister also has a lot of criticism. Dr. Dirk Jandura, President of the Federal Association of Wholesale, Foreign Trade, Services (BGA), strikes alarming tones. "Inthaltic debt -financed billions cannot repair false economic policy structurally!" - so his drastic warning from Berlin.

The minister presented some good ideas, for example the revision of the data protection regulations and the simplification of free trade agreements. "The introduction of a whitelisting, i.e. fewer reporting obligations in countries with similar standards, makes absolutely useful," emphasizes Jandura. But at the same time he has a clear disappointment with him: "Habeck's suggestions are far too careful for me. Here the federal government needs a juicy chainsaw instead of a nail file!"

demand for change in trade policy

It is not just a rugged judgment on Habeck's debt policy. Jandura also sees a need for action in the area of ​​international trade relationships. "Future free trade agreements, such as the urgently needed Mercosur Agreement, have to become slimmer and more precisely. We owe this to our companies!" A call that the federal government should definitely collect!

But where does the direction of Habeck's “Europe first” strategy lead us? Here Jandura raises his finger and warns urgently: "Germany must not lose itself in isolation tendencies! We benefit enormously from globalization and must not push our important trading partners." A clear appeal to reason!

Criticism of debt financing

The solution that Habeck suggests with the Germany fund comes across violent resistance. Jandura clearly sums up: "It is not massive subsidies that we need, but real reforms - and all of this would be possible without new debts!" An urgent sign of more incentives for investing in infrastructure and education. "The reduction of the network charges and electricity tax - all of this is not only urgently needed, but also feasible!" He demands and questions the consideration of debt.

Jandura asks provocative: "Why is this not anchored in the new household? Where are the real structural reforms?" Clear words that could cause turmoil! The question arises whether the federal government is willing to comply with these clear demands?