if a centralized society approach is not serving the interest / to the benefit of people – they – the people have every right to become decentralized / independent – generate their own food security money energy laws.
because the responsibility they have given away ( to Washington, Brussels, Berlin, London) was abused.
as democracies have grown bigger (in population, in size, Greece (where democracy was invented) are now only 10Mio people) – as power was more concentrated (fascism = fascio = concentration of power) – democracies have grown more corrupt and more fascist.
“I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. ‘That’s easy,’ he replied. ‘When I go into Downing Street (London/England) they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.’” (src)
Mark my words: lawyers will destroy this world – their madness just hit a new high
Internet and Privacy activist Anke Domscheidt Berg says, this “roadmap” could lead to banning ANY FORM OF ENCRYPTION, not just tor onion network, which would be complete madness – just think about unencrypted logins!
Man in the middle could siffon your bank account passwords and steal your money.
After DSGVO and Article 13 / content upload filter, this it is just a new round of lawyer-madness.
it also just shows once more how much of a Washington-Puppet state the post-world-war-2 Germany has become and was allowed to be and how much in the Orwellian times we already live.
fighting crime and terrorism yes – but maybe you would need a holistic approach to this
pedophiles and people selling and buying illegal weapons and drugs need to be punished – and governments around the globe have every right to use whatever method they need to catch those people before they can do harm.
But this is a task that was there before encryption and it will be there after encryption.
Should we ban cars, because some people use them to kill other people?
maybe fighting and preventing crime starts at a society that is fair, just, kind and caring and economically sustainable and sound – where everyone has a job.
praise your new god: money
France wanted to turn it into a de-industrialized patch of potato fields (not the worst of idea, comes close to ecovillage) – no more high tech weapons.
2019 – Germany is back – building high tech weapons for USA and for whoever wants to buy them and use them for evil.
The best role Germany could play is:
create hydrogen cars to save the climate (for some reason of corruption, this goal is not wanted in politics and from Mercedes CEOs?)
negotiate peace between USA and Russia – if Minsk 1 fails, do Minsk 2, Minsk 3, Minsk 4, Minsk 5… anything is better than escalation.
“On the 15th of March, the German Bundesrat (Federal Council) voted to amend the Criminal Code in relation to internet based services such as The onion router (Tor).
The proposed law has been lambasted as being too vague, with privacy experts rightfully fearful that the law would be overapplied.
The proposal, originating from the North Rhine-Westphalian Minister of Justice Peter Biesenbach, would amend and expand criminal law and make running a Tor node or website illegal and punishable by up to three years in prison.
According to Zeit.de, if passed, the expansion of the Criminal Code would be used to punish anyone “who offers an internet-based service whose access and accessibility is limited by special technical precautions, and whose purpose or activity is directed to commit or promote certain illegal acts”.
What’s worse is that the proposed changes are so vaguely worded that many other services that offer encryption could be seen as falling under this new law. While the proposal (full German text) does seem to have been written to target Tor hidden services which are dark net markets, the vague way that the proposal has been written makes it a very real possibility that other encrypted services such as messaging might be targeted under these new laws, as well.
Now that the motion to amend has been accepted by Bundesrat, it will be forwarded to the Federal Government for drafting, consideration, and comment. Then, within a month and a half, this new initiative will be forwarded to the German Senate, aka the Bundestag, where it will be finally voted on.
Private Internet Access and many others denounce this proposal and continue to support Tor and an open internet
Private Internet Access currently supports the Tor Project and runs a number of Tor exit nodes as a part of our commitment to online privacy. PIA believes this proposed amendment to the German Criminal Code is not just bad for Tor, which was named specifically, but also for online privacy as a whole – and we’re not the only ones.
German criminal lawyer David Schietinger told Der Spiegel that he was concerned the law was too overreaching and “could also mean an e-mail provider or the operator of a classic online platform with password protection.” He summarized:
“The paragraph would severely limit civil liberties.”
Frank Rieger, a spokesperson for Germany’s resident hacker organization, the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), voiced misgivings to Netzpolitik:
“The bill contains mainly rubber paragraphs with the clear goal to criminalize operators and users of anonymization services. Intentionally, the facts are kept very blurred. The intention is to create legal uncertainty and unavoidable risks of possible criminal liability for anyone who supports the right to anonymous communication on the Internet.”
Germany has now joined a host of other countries that are actively taking steps to stifle online privacy. Other examples include places like China and even the United Kingdom, where internet users will be subject to some of the most ridiculous age verification laws just to be able to access the full internet. In the next month and a half, Germany’s netizens need to voice their displeasure at this proposed amendment, else they’ll find themselves under the heel of vaguely worded laws just waiting to be applied.
Caleb Chen is a digital currency and privacy advocate who believes we must #KeepOurNetFree, preferably through decentralization. Caleb holds a Master’s in Digital Currency from the University of Nicosia as well as a Bachelor’s from the University of Virginia. He feels that the world is moving towards a better tomorrow, bit by bit by Bitcoin.
Bertelsmann Forum mit Ministerpräsident Armin Laschet
this dog could rescue the western economies and democracy itself
VideoInterview with Prof Dr Dirk Ehnts
Our current theory of money is wrong:
With every new credit (purely digital Giral-Fiat-book) banks generate new money out of nothing
How God created the world, Bankers create money from pure nothing, “creatio ex deo” (imho: this explains why many bankers think they are god-like)
the intermediary function (banks lend only saved money to others) is a folk tale, which even one or the other Banker and finance minister still believes
Banks are not “Intermediaries”
the Bank does not check how much savings money is in the stocking – this fact can not be ignored anymore
Fiat money: since 1971 (Nixon, Vietnam) Gold guarantee for dollars over
now it’s just “modern money,” “Fiat Money” (paper/ones-and-zeros on hard drives without the guaranteed value/exchange for gold/oil/potatoes… you name it)
If the state forces you to pay taxes in a certain currency, this currency gains value just because of this fact
founding idea of the European Union was to create a “United States of Europe” with a single currency.
Problem: asymmetric shock at the abandonment of the National currency
One argument was that the Euro would provide protection against financial markets, the exact OPPOSITE was the case. (Bug or intention? Could also be a Goldman Sachs intention )
a current account/export surplus always leads to a debt accumulation abroad and “at some point, that’s not good”
“Money and credit are social constructions without regulation would be unthinkable”
In times when many people take loans, there is also a lot of money created, incomes strongly correlates with debt
In 1929, two crises hit at once:
the largest real estate bubble ever
the largest stock market bubble ever
when people use the money they have for debt eradication instead of consumption, then of course, everywhere the income and also the GDP falls, because the sales of businesses (internal market) stagnates
speculative banks with high yealds but also high risks (hedge fund start collecting at $1Mio)
Consumer banks with state Deposit insurance
so people don’t have to be afraid, that in the next crisis the whole banks die and people run to the Bank, because they are afraid that they can no longer withdraw their money
was de facto cancelled under Bill Clinton but also inactivated before
Deutsche Bank was not subject to this regulation (it is a universal Bank (consumer – but speculators-Bank))
New York banks complained that this regulatory competition is unfair competition
Consensus during the Soviet Union:
the inequality of income could not be too high
we wanted to show the GDR:
“here we are all rich, even our poor are richer than your middle class”
this consensus has ensured that the redistribution of wealth was “Scandinavian” (massive redistribution)
Consensus: It is good, if the German middle class has more income
In 1970, probably triggered by oil shock crisis, the consensus broke up, corporate profits have fallen, and companies started to downwind wages
breaking with old thinking/paradigm:
lowering wages increases company’s profits
because you think -> company’s investments would also increase -> with increasing wages -> productivity also increases
but this classic “Adam Smith theory” concept has reached limits
produce Innovation, productivity and beautiful product
but you expected too much of them
they simply do not care about society
if you believe that the companies invest so much that we have full employment you are mistaken / taken for a ride.
“Entrepreneurs (unfortunately) technically are not in charge/feel responsible for raising the public well beeing, all they care about is profits” (so do the Banks) (i partly disagree, everyone has responsibility to take, nobody can 100% outsource responsibility)
Solution for the financial crisis: public spending, more government deficits – black Zero exactly wrong policy, therefore recession follows
if money creation in the private sector is not high enough (as now) i.e. if private investment are lagging – unemployment follows
which can only be removed by government expenditure increase
In my opinion the logical conclusion:
in this structural crisis (which we still feel since 2008)
the state should not only spend more, in a way, so it reaches the “real” economy
the state should also give loans (without large collateral) for:
real existing people who want to build a house (to inhabit themselves)
real existing people who want to pursue a corporate idea
real existing people that have had a company for serveral years and now look for refinincing old loans, more invest more into their own (maybe with a fine, if they just take the money and run… never let them back into the country)
there is no European contract, that austerity policies are the only allowed answer in the crisis
Prof Dr Ehnts sees responsibility to act correctly (like Portugal) and counter-steer until private investment starts again with politicians (that unfortunately are hiring consultants from private Banks and McKinsey and advocate exactly the wrong thing)
Prof. Dr. Dirk H. Ehnts explains the debt-money economic system:
What is debt? – state countercyclical expenditure
In capitalism, we have companies that want to make profits, i.e. their revenues must be above expenditure
in other words, we need another sector where expenditure is (constantly) above revenue (debt)
that means, we always need someone in the economy who is indebted, only then production which is sold and is produced more
only then are companies happy
there must be someone in this System who will inject more money into the system ( long term ) than he pulls out
there are only two options:
private sector: households and businesses spending/debt
that is, the savings of households and profit of companies are actually generated by government deficits (governmental deficit usually increases by +3% per year, state usually never makes a surpluses, but in Germany now government debt is reduced by Austerity methods, actually not good X-D, will create recession)
the idea behind this: state indebts itself until private investment starts, the state can withdraw with investment again, the state always has the possibility to take money out of the system via tax
Most people would agree, that unemployment is a bad thing
(we can assume that it causes political instability i.e. crime and riots)
if we do not want unemployment:
then one would have to use the state in such a way that the state makes expenditure when the private sector is restrained with expenditure (counter-cyclical)
if you believe that unemployment is nothing bad, because people can do something else, well…
Macron: The last Democrat of France?
if Macron can not deliver an improvement in financial-economic Situation: The winner is nationalism and Le Pen
The election of Le Pen will be the end of the Euro project and will probably lead to a new nationalism in France, but also in Germany, just like Hitler’s election results were always good when the (financial)economy was non functional and many people were unemployed. (after 1929 crisis)
“Fun” fact: France’s president until 1995 Mitterand has made/demanded the introduction of a single currency as a condition for the reunification of Germany, now, among other things, France is also suffering economically from this financial merger.
If France leaves the Euro-Projekt and reestablishs a national currency “New Franc” it could devaluate as much as 30% and thus get an competition gain of +30% ahead of Germany.
Prof Dr Ehnts does not believe that the Euro is a deliberate faulty construction “we all make mistakes” X-D (well some mistakes you only make once… )
One hope associated with the Euro was more protection against financial markets – the exact opposite happened. (who brought this in circulation? Goldman Sachs? another “unwritten” but commonly believed lie?)
The main victims of the crisis: the young people
“we are creating a lost Generation that will rise up against Europe”
About Prof Dr Ehnts
Born and raised in Bremen, he studied economics from 1997 to 2002 after graduating from the Georg-August-University in Göttingen.
From 2006 to 2012 he was assistant professor at the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg.
In 2008 he was awarded the doctorate with the grade “summa cum laude”. from 2012 to 2014, he taught macroeconomics, money and currency in Berlin as a visiting professor at the Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin.
From 2017 to 2018 he taught at Chemnitz University of technology.
Ehnts lives with his wife and two children in Berlin.
Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin
Samuel-Pufendorf-Gesellschaft für politische Ökonomie E. V. (spokesman of the board)
Dirk H. Ehnts: Modern Monetary Theory and European Macroeconomics. Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking, 2017
Dirk H. Ehnts: money and credit: a €-European perspective Ehnts. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag, 2016, 2., revised edition
Hans-Michael Trautwein, Dirk H. Ehnts: innovation and international economic relations. Oldenburg: Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ. Training and education management, 2010
Ole Christiansen, Dirk H. Ehnts, Hans-Michael Trautwein: Industry relocation, linkages and spillovers across the Baltic Sea. Oldenburg: Inst. for Economics, 2007