Wortpresse

Super Tuesday is over, and we are none the smarter who will be the nominee for the Republican Party. Or are we?
Some quick take-aways from yesterday’s elections.


Romney did pretty much what was expected of him. He won six states, some of them decisively. He clearly won the delegate count. Yet, there will be some major head-aches for Romney after Super Tuesday.

Mitt Romney did well as expected in Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts and Virginia. He did worse than expected in North Dakota and Vermont. His big win of the night came in Ohio, which means he has now won his first real test with Midwestern blue-collar workers. That should put some concerns to bed although others have cemented themselves.
That one major head-ache everyone will be talking about is Tennessee. Santorum pretty much crushed Romney in the only Southern state that was really contested (Georgia went to Gingrich as expected). Among pundits and the party establishment, Romney’s showing in Tennessee will be a major red flag. He only just managed to get every fourth vote.

The question remains: Can Romney win over conservative voters in a general election?

In about a week, on March 13th, primaries will be held in Alabama and Mississippi. On March 17th it’s Missouri, and March 24th Louisiana. That’ll be it for the South. So he has just about 17 days to finally close the books on his nomination.

It’s hard to predict what happens until then. Kansas on Saturday is anyone’s guess right now, Romney will win Maine decisively. In between you have a couple of caucuses that no one cares about (Guam, Northern Mariana Island, Virgin Islands).
So in fact, Romney has six days and two contests to build momentum and prove to voters that he is the inevitable candidate not only for the East Coast and the Midwest, but also for the conservative South. He will have to put the pedal to the ground and go into beast mode. It will be a short and steep road.

But there is also good news for Romney here. What pundits say, and what voters think is one thing. What his opponents are doing is the other, and it’s way more important.
Santorum has no chance of winning the nomination as long a Newt Gingrich is in the race. Sad day for Rick, because Newt ain’t going nowhere.
Santorum after today will not have a foot to stand on. Yes, he won against Romney in Tennessee. But if you look at the race between Gingrich and Santorum, he’s in trouble. As I said before: Gingrich is dead in the water. He should not be paid any attention. Yet, Santorum is struggling to win over the votes.
This will be an important factor in the contests in Alabama and Mississippi. If Santorum and Gingrich keep dividing up the conservative vote, neither of them is going anywhere. Heck, they might just give Romney a chance to win in one of those states.
The diehard conservative bloc of the party is making it easier for Romney right now. Look for Tea Partiers and conservative talking heads to ask Gingrich to drop out.
But my prediction is that he won’t. Gingrich has a huge ego, and he won’t quit. Plus, he has a lot of money to lose with book sales and speeches if he drops out. Someone would have to pay that man quite handsomely to convince him it’s not worth the pain.

I called it about a month ago, and today, I’m going to double down. Romney will be the Republican candidate for the Presidency in November. By default.

In den letzten Tagen ging mal wieder ein haarsträubender Vergleich durch die Onlinenetzwerke. Im Gewand angeblicher Fakten und wasserdichter Vergleiche kam platter Populismus daher.

„Deutschland – Alle Menschen sind gleich!?“ wurde dort gefragt und der Fall „Emmely“ dem Rücktritt von Christian Wulff gegenübergestellt. Der Vergleich ist nicht nur falsch, sondern auch unvollständig.



Falsch ist der Vergleich, weil unterschiedliche Konsequenzen gegenübergestellt werden. Die Kassiererin hatte zwei nicht ihr gehörende Pfandbons eingelöst und wurde dafür fristlos gekündigt. Ihren in 31 Jahren erworbenen Rentenanspruch hat das nicht berührt. Die Rente für diese Arbeitszeit wird sie bekommen.
Christian Wulff musste nach Vorwürfen des Amtsmissbrauches, Vorteilnahme sowie der Täuschung aus seiner der Zeit als Ministerpräsident, von seinem Amt als Bundespräsident zurückgetreten. Am Tag zuvor hatte die Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover angekündigt, die Aufhebung der Immunität von Wulff zu beantragen, um den Weg für weitere Ermittlungen frei zu machen. Für die Zeit als Bundespräsident erhält er keine Rente, sondern einen Ehrensold. Im Gegensatz zur Rente kann der Ehrensold gewährt werden, die Rente muss gewährt werden.
Die Konsequenz aufgrund ihres Fehlverhaltens ist allerdings in beiden Fällen: Sie sind ihren Job los. Soweit sind alle Menschen gleich.
Unvollständig ist der Vergleich, weil die Geschichte in beiden Fällen nicht da aufhört, wo es das Bild suggeriert. Der Kassiererin wurde vorgeworfen, zwei nicht ihr gehörende Pfandgutbons in Höhe von insgesamt 1,30€ zu ihren Gunsten eingelöst zu haben. Als sie darauf von ihrem Arbeitgeber angesprochen wurde, leugnete sie die Tat und wurde später fristlos entlassen. Darauf hin klagte sie 2 Jahre durch alle Instanzen bis hin zum Bundesarbeitsgericht auf Wiedereinstellung. Nach der Meinung von „Emmely“ rechtfertigt das Einlösen der Pfandbons keine Kündigung. In der Verhandlung am 10. Juni 2010 stellte das Gericht fest, das die Tat nur eine „erhebliche Pflichtwidrigkeit“ war und das in 31 Jahren Berufstätigkeit erworbene Vertrauen durch diese einmalige und geringfügige Verfehlung keine Kündigung rechtfertigt (BAG 2 AZR 541/09). Der Arbeitgeber hätte lediglich mit einer Abmahnung reagieren können. Die Konsequenz: Die Kassiererin musste wieder eingestellt werden und erhielt den vollen Lohn der ihr seit der Kündigung entgangen war. Damit nicht genug. Der Arbeitgeber musste natürlich die Verfahrenskosten tragen, die Rentenzahlungen nachholen und ihr den entgangen Urlaub von insgesamt 4 Monaten gewähren.
Bei Christian Wulff ist die Geschichte auch nicht vorbei. Die Vorwürfe aus seiner Zeit als Ministerpräsident werden nach wie vor von der Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover untersucht. Ob und wann es zu einer Anklage kommt, ist bisher offen. Bleibt noch die Frage nach dem Ehrensold. Wulffs Vorgänger Horst Köhler war aufgrund scharfer Kritik an seinen Äußerungen nach 6 Jahren Amtszeit zurückgetreten. Anfang März 2012 wurde bekannt, das Köhler auf seinen Ehrensold verzichtet.

Leider ist dieser falsche und unvollständige Vergleich kein Einzelfall.
Der Internetunternehmer Kim Schmitz wurde Anfang Januar Pädophilen, Mördern und Verbrechern gegenübergestellt. Immer erhielt er die höhere Strafe in den Vergleichen. Hier nochmal das Bild zur Erinnerung:



Die hier gemachte Aussage des „Vergleichs“ ist die folgende: Zwei unterschiedliche Menschen bekommen in unterschiedlichen Staaten für unterschiedliche Verbrechen aufgrund unterschiedlicher Rechtssysteme unterschiedliche Strafmaße. Das ist kein Vergleich.
Und falsch Angaben enthält die Aussage auch noch. Kim Schmitz ist im Unterschied zu den gegenübergestellten Personen noch nicht rechtskräftig verurteilt. Die Vorwürfe (und eben keine Verurteilung) gegen ihn gehen bisher von Urheberrechtsverletzungen bis hin zu Steuerhinterziehung und Geldwäsche, wofür ihm ein bestimmtes Strafmaß droht.

Wie also richtig vergleichen?
Der Vergleich ist eine grundlegende Methode um Unterschiede oder Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen zwei Objekten zu erkennen. So einfach wie das klingt, gibt es doch einige Voraussetzungen für einen erfolgreichen Vergleich, die unter anderen der deutsche Philosoph Alfred Brunswig definierte. Es braucht mindestens zwei (Vergleichs-)Objekte und jemand der vergleicht (das Subjekt). So weit, so gut. Die beiden Objekte müssen außerdem durch ein bestimmtes Verhältnis (Relation), das heißt Gleichheit oder Ungleichheit gekennzeichnet werden können. Als letztes Kriterium führt Brunswig die Hinsicht an und meint damit, dass die beiden Objekte mindestens ein Merkmal gemeinsam haben müssen. Hier ist nur das Merkmal gemeint, nicht die Merkmalsausprägung. Natürlich müssen die Angaben an sich richtig sein, falsche Angaben können zu keinem richtigen Vergleich führen.
Kleines Beispiel:
Ein braunes uns ein weißes Hühnerei der Größe M (zwei Objekte) erkenne ich (Subjekt) in Hinsicht auf die Höhe (gemeinsames Merkmal) als gleich (Relationen der Merkmalsausprägung).
Das braune und das weiße Hühnerei sind aber in Hinsicht auf die Farbe ungleich.

Im "Emmely"-Wulff-Vergleich gibt es sogar zwei gemeinsame Merkmale: der Vorwurf und die Konsequenz wobei die Merkmalsausprägung jeweils ungleich ist. Die Kassiererin und der Bundespräsident sahen sich beide einem Vorwurf ausgesetzt (Pfandbon unrechtmäßig eingelöst die eine, Amtsmissbrauch etc. der andere), und mussten dafür die Konsequenzen tragen, nämlich die Merkmalsausprägung: Abmahnung für die eine, der andere musste vorerst nur zurücktreten. Das Merkmal der Rente hat nur die Kassiererin, während der Bundespräsident das Merkmal Ehrensold hat, also das gemeinsame Merkmal fehlt. Es werden hier zwei Merkmale verglichen und nicht die Merkmalsausprägungen.
Im zweiten Beispiel gibt es kein gemeinsames Merkmal. Im linken Teil des Bildes werden die Merkmale Haftjahre, die Straftat sowie der Ort genannt. Im rechten Bildabschnitt sind lediglich die Merkmale drohendes Strafmaß und der Vorwurf genannt. Hier kann also überhaupt kein Vergleich stattfinden da die gemeinsamen Merkmale fehlen.

Im Endeffekt geht es nicht um Kleinlichkeit sondern tatsächliche Ungleichheiten deutlich zu machen wo es sie, nach Meinung desjenigen der den Vergleich anstellt, nicht geben sollte. Mit bloßem Populismus wie in den beiden Beispielen kommt man da nicht weiter. Wenn bei einem Vergleich die richtigen Fakten genannt werden und die Methode korrekt verwendet wird, braucht es keine empörten Worte mehr.
Dann kann man schöne Bilder machen. Aber bitte richtig!

Mitarbeit: tra

Super Tuesday is finally upon us: 4 candidates – 10 states – 437 delegates.
Romney goes into most states as the favorite to win, and he has quite a lot to prove. For Santorum it is a question of not falling behind too much. One or two wins would boost his credentials. The same goes for Ron Paul, who will be looking to net his first win of the primary season and to stay ahead of Gingrich. As for Newt… he’s done.
The good news first (or is it bad news?): nothing will be decided today. The show will go on Wednesday morning. Though we might be nudging closer to a decision if Romney can bag a few important states.

So here is my guide to Super Tuesday with a few pointers what to watch out for:


1. All eyes on the Buckeyes.
Most pundits will concentrate on the competition in the Buckeye State of Ohio. Why? Statistics.
Americans love statistics. Conventional wisdom states that no Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten to the White House without winning Ohio. So it will be a highly symbolic win giving the victor bragging rights going into a possible head-to-head against Obama.
With 66 delegates up for grabs it’s also the second biggest state on Super Tuesday after Georgia. But because Georgia is pretty much irrelevant this time around (more to that later) Ohio matters all the more.
The polls suggest a close contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Importantly, momentum is on the side of the Romney camp. In the last weeks Romney has made up double-digits making it a statistical tie in a lot of polls.
And don’t forget: Santorum from the neighboring state of Pennsylvania has built up his campaign on an appeal to the working people of the Midwest. It would be a tough blow for his campaign to lose against Romney, whom they are trying to label as an out-of-touch liberal millionaire.
A win for Romney in Ohio after the one in Michigan should shut up a lot of pundits and opponents claiming he is unelectable among the working class.


2. Southern (Dis-)Comfort
As I have stated before on this blog, I believe Newt Gingrich is dead in the water. And he is; he was no hope of winning the nomination. But that does not mean that he is done campaigning for it.
Expect Gingrich to do better in the Southern States than in all the other contests. He should easily win his native Georgia with 76 delegates, which will be his argument to not drop out quite yet. Of course it’s really about the money, Lebowski!

More interesting than Georgia is the contest in Tennessee (58 delegates). Romney has something to prove here: that the can win in the South. So far, he has lost both primaries in the Southern states: South Carolina went to Gingrich, and Missouri went to Santorum (absolutely irrelevant state with 0 delegates).
So far it is essentially a tie in the polls between Romney and Santorum. But it is Santorum’s state to lose. His recent wave of attacks against contraception, health care and education, and his evergreen of anti-gay messages resonate with Southern voters.
If Romney on the other hand wins Tennessee it will be a tremendous boost to his street cred. The South has been a Republican stronghold for 50 years, with a big voting bloc of bible-thumping, liberal-hating conservatives. Winning a piece of that cake would be more than money could buy for Romney. Yet, winning with a very narrow margin would definitely water it all down a bit.


3. Ron Paul’s big moment?
There are a lot of votes to be taken in the Caucus states of Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota (87 delegates in total). Romney has done fairly well in caucuses so far, as has Ron Paul.
Ron Paul might be the dark horse here. He is the only candidate who has campaigned in Alaska, where there are a lot of Tea Partiers; a crowd largely in favor of Paul and Santorum. The same goes for North Dakota. Look for strong performances of the Paul campaign in both states. They are both pretty much up for grabs. Either could be his chance to net his first victory.
Idaho should go to Romney. One word: Mormons.


4. Just win, baby… or not.
After everything I have just told you, let me tell you this: it’s not really that important who wins in most of the states.
Winning has symbolic meaning most of the times, and it gets you air-time and softball questions from pundits. But what really matters is the hard count of delegates.
Being that most states are in Romney’s favor or really close with Romney in the top 2, it is already pretty much clear that he will be the big winner in the delegate count. He should easily get enough votes to pad his numbers and stay clearly in the lead ahead of Rick Santorum.


5. Viriginia FAIL
Just for fun watch out for Virginia. Voters in that state will have a very short list of candidates to choose from: it’s either Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul. Santorum, as well as Gingrich have failed to qualify for the ballot in Virginia. So it’s not a real contest (look for Romney to win quite handsomely), but it’s fun for everybody – expect for Rick and Newt.

People who know me have come to realize fairly quickly that my knowledge of economics comes down to close to nothing. Nada, zip, ziltch.

But I believe that this makes me a good advocate for learning about economics, since I find it an interesting subject regardless of my legendary lack of expertise.
So, I have decided to talk about simple economic issues on this blog. People who know about eco-nomics: please don’t be too hard on me. I really try to get the big picture.

The first topic I wanted to tackle is economic austerity. We live with the term and concept every day, with most of Europe in economic turmoil and shouts of an austerity czar being controversially discussed. In 2009, David Cameron called out the “Age of Austerity”, and in 2010 the time-honored Merriam-Webster dictionary made it its Word Of The Year. After reading headline after headline about austerity measures and the like, I have tried to understand what it entails.
So here’s my question in a nutshell: what is austerity in its foundations, and what principle guide it?

In principle, austerity measures are government policies to reduce the amount of money it spends. Deficits are cut, and a reduction of the amount of benefits and public services provided is sought. Austerity advocates don't just see lower deficits and reduced debt as tools to promote long-term economic health. They often consider them ends in themselves as moral values. Government spending is perceived as something inherently wrong. Of course most advocates of economic austerity will make concessions – police, firefighters, teachers, nurses, you get the picture. Still, the point is to reduce all government spending to a bare existential minimum.

The theories behind austerity measures are widely contested. These include theories like the 'Barro-Ricardo equivalence', which says people won't spend money when they know their government is incurring debts they will have to pay someday. Conservative economists like Robert Barro insist this is true especially in times of widespread unemployment, like now, and argue against stimulus spending to create jobs. Oddly, they find this theory more compelling than the idea that people aren't spending money because they don't have jobs. Many critics claim that this theory is not applicable in reality as government spending would have to be much higher to actually affect buyer behavior.
Then there's supply-side economics, which argues that the best way to grow the economy is by cutting taxes and creating smaller governments. Supply-sider theorists argue that people will stop investing, producing, and creating jobs if taxes are too high. This, I am pretty confident to say, is bullshit. Even Warren Buffett, the best of the best in the investment business, said that no investor will ever shy away from a deal even if taxes were sky-high.

So do austerity measures work in real economies? I would tend to say they do not. Austerity has been a disaster for Great Britain and Europe, yet many leaders are demanding more of the same. They are often ignoring the approaches that have worked in the past, as in the Great Depression: Invest in short-term growth which gets the work force back into employment, and then address long-term deficit issues once the economy is back on its feet.
Also a point that is often misinterpreted is that debt is not something inherently bad. You can’t compare a credit you take up to pay for your house with that of a national household. The same goes for the interpretation that a debt burden will have to be paid off by future generations. That is because, unlike private individuals, a nation will repay debts by borrowing new money. As for the interest burden that is said to arise when the interest is paid by taxation rather than by fresh borrowing, it is merely a transfer payment. Income is transferred from taxpayers to bond-holders. In Germany as in many European countries these bond-holders are domestic. The transfer is therefore a redistribution rather than a loss of income. Although this is obviously a model and is not always applicable as in the case of Greece, where most bond-holders are not domestic.

In this whole ordeal of austerity-mania, the disconcerting thing is that it is a mainly politically-driven phenomenon. Look back in time, and fifty years ago most economists would have already spoken out against austerity measures in economic depression due to their empirical findings during the Great Depression. But austerity has come back in the form of political doctrine, and to the detriment of millions of workers who are paying the price.