Bank rescue: Stop the financial crisis populism

Ten years ago, the bankruptcy of the bank Lehman Brothers began the financial crisis. And shortly thereafter, they relaxed around her
Narrative that has since been repeated and repeated by people of various kinds
is passed on. It's a kind of reverse Robin Hood story. With tens of billions
Tax money, she is told, were banks in 2008 and the following years
and bankers saved
, an elite who had gambled, the rich ones who
actually did not need – at the expense of taxpayers, at the expense
the poor. All this, instead of the money for pensions, kindergartens or nursing
spend where it is now missing.
            This narrative is used by people of different political directions. For example, sympathizers the occupier of the Hambacher
: "We had 60 billion euros for the banks, but save a forest
we can not afford each other, "writes one of them on Twitter
AfD is vulnerable to this logic. In their circles one calls the bank rescue
like "socialism for the rich". The general public is asked to pay
it is said, then, so that the rich would not have to starve.
            And even Federal Finance Minister and SPD politician Olaf Scholz quotes
this view: "The protest against the fact that in the crisis' for the banks money
there was, but the state for the concerns of its citizens not
raising enough money, 2009 was a core concern of social movements ",
he writes in a contribution to ten years of financial crisis for the Frankfurt
General newspaper. He adds later though: "This view may be something
be simplified ", but that does not mean, but rather lamented over the
Injustices of today's wealth distribution.
            A heresy of the financial crisis So there was money for the banks in the years after
2008, not for others? Hardly any accusation has been repeated so often. And yet
is he wrong. He is a heresy of the financial crisis. Because who only one
knows little about this time, who knows: that's not how it was.
            Non-gambling banks were in the years 2008 and
saved the following. No, that would have been lost, if it was
would have gone halfway harmless for the country. That did not work, because the
Banks that would have taken ordinary people with them: every single one
Owner of an account – each one by the way also a voter. Because at the
Bankruptcy of a large bank would have given it contagion effects on all banks.
And it would have been the ordinary customers who did not get their money
would have gotten back. Imagine what today's AfD politician,
what the today's Hambacher Forst sympathizer would have said, if they were up
once stood without money.
            The state sprang up for the citizens So it's not literally wrong,
if anyone says banks have been saved with tens of billions, but for the forest
no money there. (Apart from the fact that it is not the point at Hambacher Forst
is that it's too expensive to save him, but let's ignore that.)
But it insinuates that there was money for the rich, for things
the normal people are important, however, not. And that is wrong. Because on
The end was about the ordinary people, all citizens, than the state at that time
stepped in.
            In the end, the bailout in Germany has above all
the system saved. All of his pre-existing injustices.
Of course, more money was saved on customers with more money in the account than at
to the poor. And of course it is also unfair that bankers who gambled
had just been saved.
                Should it have been left? If you had that
System should rather implode The idea that by doing fortune
destroyed and the world would have become a bit more equal, is appealing. It
There are sure to be some anarchists who would have liked that. Maybe,
because he had no money in the bank account anyway and therefore had nothing to lose.
  It's wrong to lie to yourself But the vast majority of Germans opposed it in 2008,
and she would be against it today. It's wrong to think about it afterwards
to lie to yourself. Stop the financial crisis populism! That is true
especially for all politicians – including Olaf Scholz. You should do it yourself and
not to make his voters too easy.
            Then politics can finally talk about that,
what is really left to do. For example, the banks in Germany are in
no good location. Although they hold much more equity than they once did, it is enough
that many experts still do not. At the same time, the Americans want to go under
Donald Trump loosening the rules for their banks again. Counteract here,
so that the lessons of the financial crisis are not forgotten after ten years
that's the job of politics.
            And of course, she can of course watch what she does for
still wants to spend money except for saving the savers. But who the
Statements of Scholz of the past time
has followed, knows: Currently
There is no danger that the government will be inactive when it comes to spending money