welt.de
Schularick Proposes Retiree Involvement in Funding German Defense Buildup
Moritz Schularick, president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, proposed involving retirees in financing increased German defense spending by potentially raising the retirement age and freezing their living standards at current levels, to fund a potential increase of hundreds of billions of euros annually.
- What specific measures does Schularick propose to finance significantly increased German defense spending, and what are the immediate financial implications for retirees?
- Moritz Schularick, president of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), proposed involving retirees in financing increased defense spending. He suggests freezing their living standards at current levels through inflation adjustments and potentially raising the retirement age to fund a significant increase in military spending, potentially reaching hundreds of billions annually.
- How does Schularick's proposal connect past government decisions, specifically those related to security and the pension system, to the current need for increased defense spending?
- Schularick's proposal links the need for increased defense spending (potentially tripling the current budget) to the need for budgetary adjustments, arguing that the older generation consumed the peace dividend and failed to adequately invest in security or future-proof the pension system. This connects the current security situation with past decisions and proposes burden-sharing across generations to address the financial implications of increased defense spending.
- What are the long-term strategic implications of Germany's current level of defense spending, and how might Schularick's plan to finance increases affect Germany's security and economic independence?
- Schularick criticizes Chancellor Scholz's questioning of who should pay for increased defense spending, arguing it's misleading. He asserts that failing to increase spending, and consequently remain defensibly capable, could prove far more expensive in the long run, potentially leading to continued dependence on American weapons and higher costs. He sees building a European defense industry as crucial to escaping this dependence.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the financial burden of increased defense spending and places significant blame on the older generation for past inaction. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the proposal to involve retirees in funding, setting a negative tone and potentially influencing reader perception before presenting alternative viewpoints. The use of quotes from Schularick is strategically placed to reinforce this narrative.
Language Bias
The language used is somewhat loaded. Phrases like "the elderly should pay the price," "consume the peace dividend," and "erpressbar" (blackmailable) carry negative connotations and may influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives could include, for instance, "the elderly should contribute," "utilized the peace dividend," and "vulnerable to pressure." The repeated emphasis on the financial burden creates a negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the economic aspects of increased defense spending and the potential burden on the elderly, but omits discussion of alternative funding sources, such as increased taxes on corporations or higher earners. It also doesn't explore the potential economic benefits of increased defense spending, such as job creation or technological advancements. The perspectives of various stakeholders, like military personnel or defense industry representatives, are absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the choice as solely between increasing defense spending and burdening either the younger or older generations. It overlooks other potential solutions and doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the complexity of budgetary allocation.
Sustainable Development Goals
Schularick's proposal to increase the retirement age and freeze the standard of living for retirees to fund increased defense spending disproportionately impacts older generations, exacerbating existing inequalities. This is further supported by his statement that the older generation should pay the price for past underinvestment in security, creating an intergenerational conflict over resource allocation.