“Tank discount is buying popularity”

Read the whole interview here:

Mr von Eben-Worlée, the federal government is supporting the economy, which is suffering from high energy prices, with a protective shield. Will the measures suffice?
That’s hard to predict. Fortunately, we are currently seeing a slight normalization of prices again. From my point of view, the great danger is less that the protective shield is not enough – but that it is too extensive and stands in the way of other goals.

Which do you mean?
If we want to become independent of Russian energy quickly, the high energy prices will actually help. And we also protect the climate. Because of the high prices, companies are moving heaven and earth to use energy even more efficiently. Now the federal government wants to manipulate these scarcity signals with flat-rate tax cuts on petrol and diesel and a cost subsidy for energy-intensive companies, which dampens the incentive to save energy across the board.

>> Read here: Why the wrong people are benefiting from the federal government’s relief packages for high energy prices

Should the government ignore the severely strained economy?
Of course not, there are also other, more meaningful aids planned. And the energy cost subsidy will probably only be paid out to a few companies that are particularly hard hit. The tank discount for everyone is clearly from the category: Buying popularity to get votes. Apparently the wrong conclusions were drawn from the massive aid paid out in the corona crisis. The government must not forget: at the end of the day, they are spending taxpayers’ money.

Economics Minister Robert Habeck and Finance Minister Christian Lindner are your guests at the Family Entrepreneur Days this week. Doesn’t the two expect a friendly reception in view of this criticism?
But. The overall balance of the two in the first few months is otherwise positive. Both have committed themselves to the market economy principles of regulatory policy. One is more stable in the saddle, but the other quickly learned to ride.

In January you criticized that Habeck was just a climate minister and was forgetting about the economy.
Despite the horror of the Ukraine war, the current crisis has changed that. Habeck has understood that maintaining the economy must be the top priority now. The circumstances of that war have made him a pretty good Minister of Economics. Which of course does not mean that there is no more room for improvement.

Where do you see them?
Especially in the much-announced offensive to speed up planning and approval procedures. Little deregulation has been seen so far. Although Habeck has accelerated the expansion of wind power, it has failed to do so in all other areas. Of course, the government has many other things to do at the moment. But reducing bureaucracy would also help to become independent from Russia.

As?
An example: Many industrial companies no longer want to use gas. For this they have to invest in new burners that work with oil. Due to the exchange, however, they usually need a new emission control permit. It usually takes three months before they get it. The entrepreneurs often have to wait almost a year before the new burner is ready for use. So far, the government has been addressing such problems primarily with a lot of money, but it would have to get to the structure.

So the state should keep the money it wants to give to the economy?
He must at least use the taxpayer’s money in a more targeted manner. The transformation of the economy depends more on processes than on money. The contracts for difference, with which Habeck wants to give industry the money to switch to climate-neutral technologies, could still be dangerous for us.

For what reason?
State start-up financing is correct. But such comprehensive plans for state industrial policy ensure that isolated industrial champions emerge, but all the more small and medium-sized companies cannot remain competitive in the long term.

We are dependent on Russia for energy and on China for many other imports. This could still be dangerous for us if we do not strengthen our sovereignty. How is this to succeed without an active, comprehensive industrial policy?
Of course we have to strengthen our sovereignty. But as soon as this term is mentioned, the Altmaier syndrome always breaks out in politics…

… the German industrial strategy goes back to former economics minister Peter Altmaier…
Those responsible always want to promote with the big watering can and especially the big companies. But that is neither in the interests of the important medium-sized companies nor sustainable. This also takes away the incentive to work on technical progress.

More: Why the wrong people are benefiting from the federal government’s relief packages for high energy prices