@mk@konni not to forget that the government decides what kind of power plants are even allowed to be built or run.
Although I understand konni's point that many people wouldn't call even heavy state involvement 'socialist', but that seems more like an issue of using the same definitions.
---energy--- - example: "übergewinnsteuer" (excess profits tax) government determines how much a biogas energy providers can earn. every € that you earn above 0.23eur/kwh is beeing taxed with a 90% taxrate.
@konni@mk that's still semantics, i think. MK's point was that the most state-controlled parts of germany's economy are the ones that are failing the hardest, and I would agree.
@lain@mk it's true that germany is a nation that doesn't really use a free market
instead it's more of a "monster in chains" approach to the market, where the default assumption is that the free market is an opportunistic and sometimes destructive force that can only consistently do good if restrained by a gijillon laws and bounds
but "socialism", "socialist" etc are models of distribution or collecitve funding and they are not used in housing or energy, which are still private
@mk@lain honestly might be right that the excess of regulation has and continues to hold back innovation/growth in terms of renewables especially bavaria lmao i don't see energy companies caring about their tourism too much if the authorities werent there
@mk@lain hm ... i mean yes this is a social-market thing they're doing, and in this instance tbh i think it sounds reasonable
idk socialism just sounds to me like taxpayers paying for people in need directly it also sounds more like full gouvernment control, no involvment of profit-drive whatsoever
you know? there is still a market in there somewhere, it's just that the gouvernment is a big party in the market as well as the authority that determines the rules of the market
socialized for me is the opposite of privatized, and if energy was socialized, there would be absolutely no profit made from energy in this nation
but thats definitions yes they are capping the profits and funding renewables
to my understanding you are saying that if the govmt hadn't intervened we would have less of a dependency on energy imports? (the only major "failing" i see rn, apart from the slow progress to expand the grid and set up rneweables) though tbh, it's worth keeping in mind that coal is unprofitable without govmnt support (i think)
you are kinda right that the german gouvmt kinda griefed our worldwide-lead in the wind turbine market, cus CDU-FDP decided Wind was to unregulated
"The Commission has adopted[..]Horizon Europe work programme 2023-24, with around €13.5 billion to support[..]solutions for environmental, energy, digital and geopolitical challenges[..]funding will contribute to the EU reaching its climate goals, increasing energy resilience, and developing core digital technologies."
so if the government taxes you at a 90% rate and redistributes this money to subsidize other renewable energy sources isn't "distribution or collecitve funding"?
the #nordstream 1 and 2 blast was the largest terrorist #attack in the world in terms of the financial damage that has been caused and continues to accumulate in the future.
the german government stopped investigations into it and helps the perpetrators to get away with it.
"Geheimnispolitik: Bundesregierung verwehrt Abgeordneten Auskünfte über Anschläge auf die Pipelines."
@mk@lain Treason. Terrorism. Passing an enabling act. Arresting opposing politicians.
I don't even consider the most egregious corruption to be breaking the oath, if it just changes the system in legal ways, according to Base law. It needs to be an actual attack, an attempt to subvert the fundamental order of the system, to really apply. Or a foreign policy treason thing
Just steering german policy in a wrong direction by mistake/malice can't be against the oath, otherwise politicians wouldn't be able to make decisions in uncertain conditions, or at all.
@mk@lain i agree that's stupid populist in my opinion nuclear power is definetely less dangerous then climate change, and though they should eventually be phased out, i think that the dirtier coal plants should go first
so a misstep for sure.
but not nearly enough to constitute breaking their oath, especially since the greens are kinda obligated to listen to the base of members they represent
the democratic process doesn't always have the outcome you personally think is optimal
and at this point Habeck has already gone back and started debating extending Emsland again but- RWE actually kinda refuses at this point, they dont wanna
3/3 so basically there is a high risk of blackouts in germany, because of electricity shortage and what are the leftists in the german federal government deciding?
translated "The third remaining Emsland nuclear power plant, on the other hand, is to be finally shut down on January 1, 2023."
proof of government acting irrational and against german interest in three steps.
1/3 we do have a electricity shortage in germany right now.
11690 redispatches in deutschland this year alone, because of fluctuating wind/sun power and caused by leftists shutting down more and more non-renewable power plants. https://youtu.be/jlO7RCYIJJ0?t=229
"politicians we respectively disagree with think they have the nations best interest in mind..."
01:50 Annalena Baerbock (Germany's minister for foreign affairs): "but if i give the promise to people in ukraine we stand with you as long as you need us then i want to deliver -no matter what my german voters think- but i want to deliver to the people of ukraine" https://youtu.be/MbCho00uj1c?t=110
Mrs. baerbock doesn't care what her german voters think.
you know as well as i do, that politicians we respectively disagree with think they have the nations best interest in mind...
also: what you describe is probably one of the most abstract most long-term threaths imaginable fucking "gradual deindustralisation" on a 20 year timeline
you act like slowly worsening a nations economy in the long term is the same as firing a missile at an orphanage the former is something abstract that easily happens due to lack of skill or even global pressure outside of your control. the latter is harm that can actually be attributed to a single person or movement
That's like quoting "Widerstandsrecht" as soon as someone passes a law that's not how it works bozo
what they have sworn (translated): "I swear that I will devote my energies to the well-being of the German people, increase their benefit, protect them from harm, uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws of the Federation, perform my duties conscientiously and do justice to everyone. So help me God.”
this will lead to massive unrest in the population and might even end the democrating federal government if the leftists communists keep breaking their oath to protect germany from harm.