ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

Germany is bankrupt

In our article “Germany as a mutual insurance society” we come to the conclusion that according to the legal regulations and principles which apply for a mutual insurance society, which are governed in particular by regulations on proper accounting, Germany is technically bankrupt if it had to produce accounts in accordance with these regulations. Nor can this be countered by the assessment of the rating agencies with the top rating of AAA, because, although these responsible major credit rating agencies in the United States are regarded as economically reliable, the principles for the relevant assessment do not correspond to any objective economic principles. We have examined this fact in various articles.
The essential fact is that the ratings of the rating agencies of stable countries reflect a completely different and contrary assessment of the creditworthiness and reliability of Germany. The notable fact is that those who do not form part of the system, such as the banks, companies and countries, would come to a much worse rating, which would be far below the current top rating. The smaller, independent and therefore more objective US rating agency, the Egan-Jones Ratings Company, should be taken just as seriously as the agencies of Norway and also the largest Chinese agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating. The situation of the Swiss rating agencies with their ratings of Germany corresponded with these until recently, but probably because of the enormous economic dependencies for the Swiss economy on Euro countries, new ratings have recently been published. In accordance with their classification it is clear that Germany is the first industrial nation within the European Monetary Union that can no longer be what it pretends to be.
It is worth noting that these “economic” credit rating agencies in the United States (standard & Poor's, Fitch and Moody's) still publish top ratings for Germany, even though they downgraded the state banks of 11 German federal states in December 2011. These downgrades with regard to creditworthiness and reliability were made with the argument that although these highly indebted state banks hold guarantees from the federal states backing them, it can no longer be expected that these states themselves will be in any financial position in the foreseeable future to make good the deficits of their state banks. 11 of 16 federal states and their state banks with poor credit rating and poor reliability – this must allow conclusions to be drawn about Germany as a whole, because these states represent 70% of al the federal states - how can a country in which 11 of 16 federal states are assessed by the rating agencies as being technically insolvent still be given the top rating as a country?
In addition, Germany has no more cash available in order to meet its cash deposit obligations for the so-called ESM amounting to almost € 22 billion (in instalments) without further borrowing. These cash deposit obligations can only be met by means of loans, for which guarantees and liabilities, or subsidiary liabilities, are assumed . Supported countries are now kept afloat only by means of the banks, who can still do good business on the back of these loans and the delaying of insolvency.
This is also apparent when it is established (according to statistical yearbooks of the Federal Republic of Germany) that the entire financial wealth of the Germans is about € 5 trillion. To this can be added property also in the order of around € 5 trillion. If we take only the entire German financial assets, of which between 92.5% and 95% are held only by 5-7.5% of the total population of Germany, then, it becomes apparent that no liquid funds are available to cover the debts of Germany, if it must be assumed that these are made up approximately as follows:

€ 2.2 trillion towards external third parties (explicit debts);
Up to € 9 trillion implicit debts in the German legal social systems including civil servants’ retirement schemes and
including the purchase of junk government bonds and the resulting share for Germany through the European Central Bank (ECB) and
including their bank support of 2 x € 500 billion = € 1 trillion and the additional financing of the International Monetary Fund concerning the German share
including the bank support already given, such as to Hypo Real Estate consisting of hundreds of billions of Euros, up to an estimated total of about € 1 trillion, so that the total debt volume
including deferred debts, which overlay the debt brake and could be realised at any time, as the German share in rescue package obligations, with which on future realisation of payment obligations towards supported countries the German parliament has irresponsibly thrown way the budgetary right as the supreme democratic principle, in favour of an automatic mechanism which allows indebted countries to make use of German funds whenever this appears necessary. It is all too easy to forget: Germany is bankrupt. The total debts of Germany are

in the order of size of over € 12 to 15 trillion (because of the debts of private households and the necessary depreciation of completely ailing claims at highest risk held by German banks).

After comparison of total German assets of € 5 trillion, this leaves a shortfall of around € 7 to 10 trillion. Even if the entire property assets of the Germans could be liquidated, this would still leave a shortfall of around € 2 to 5 trillion (after the possible additional € 5 trillion). Because even if critics could argue that over € 12 to 15 trillion is too high an estimate, and the implicit debt is significantly lower than with € 9 trillion, then the IMF would come to a completely different conclusion (in addition to that of 2006).
In the year 2006, according to the IMF, Germany had nearly € 7 billion in implicit debts; even if these had remained unchanged, there would still be a shortfall of around € 3 trillion.
This however takes into account that the entire German property assets would have been converted into financial assets, and there would no longer be any mortgage debts on property. In this case, there would be a shortfall of up to € 8 billion - always taking into account the deficits in civil service pensions and all statutory social systems of Germany etc. (as stated above). This can be countered by the fact that according to supreme court jurisdiction in many areas, the statutory social security systems in Germany, in particular in the statutory pension insurance of the German pension insurance system, can if necessary be reduced to the minimum subsistence level or alimentation.

We will state our position on this separately.

Actually, such argumentation is not permissible in a state such as ours, if it wants to be considered as a welfare state. The level of debt which the German people’s representatives have accumulated is unprecedented. Germany had already mismanaged itself to the point of ruin even before the payment obligations entered into under the EU. The Federal Governments, which took their oath of office for the benefit of the German people no longer worked for the good of the people. The term Fatherland, which former Chancellor Kohl liked to use so much, was therefore doubly devalued, because Germany can longer be a safe refuge for its citizens. The financial security that such a refuge would have offered has been gambled away. Since the beginning of European Monetary Union we have been in the midst of the consequences of this financial impasse, which is at the same time just a devaluation of all German values, and which will culminate in all the people being trapped in a gradual process of impoverishment.
So this must not longer be the future, and our young people have a decent prospect of a financially secure and meaningful life (with strong buying power), we must finally create the conditions, through demonstrations and discussions, so that politics, business and banks, i.e. power, is controlled. This control must emanate from the people. Control of the parliament and the government can only be achieved through real, direct democracy via plebiscites and referenda. This popular codetermination must be enshrined in the Constitution. Consideration should also be given to the possibility that governments who do not comply with their responsibilities could be striped of these responsibilities, even before the end of their term of office; it must also be possible that legislation that has been passed by parliament can still be changed by popular vote.
It must no longer be the case that the destiny of the entire people lies in the hands of a relatively small proportion of Germans, and it can therefore also not be in the interests of the people that the country goes bankrupt. Conditions must be created so that economic, political and legal concepts and instruments are included in school education, so that a civil responsibility can develop, and the people are enabled to judge according to economic points of view, and to learn to assess political responsibility.
It would also be necessary to create other responsibilities in the press and law so that financial or reputation-related dependencies no longer block the factual, material discussion, and above all material decisions. As long as it remains unclear that nobody is acting in the interest of the people, if he bases his work on party-political necessities, or places financial interests, especially profit from losing business with state funds, before the common financial good, and the law and the press tolerate this behaviour and the interests it represents, then nothing can change – as long as this is the case, the people must simply trust that their representatives will do the right thing. Yet power must be controlled – even the power of the people. Here too the right conditions must be created.
First, however, the power of the triumvirate - banks, business, politics – must be directed to the actual interests of the people, and no longer for the triumvirates own purposes. This also includes the prevention of the ratification of the ESM, because the ESM diminishes all future prospects of a Euro with strong purchasing power, on which necessary reforms for Germany depend, if the Euro is to be retained in future as the in Germany.
To document the current bankrupt situation, it would certainly be useful if the capitalised federal grants of around € 83 billion annually (trend: upward) could present a good picture in comparison to the above specified implicit debt amounts, and that the IMF, with a new 2012 national assessment for Germany 2012, six years after the last national assessment, could come to different results than the above mentioned implicit debts.

If the possible reductions in pensions actually paid under German pension insurance and civil service pensions could also reduce also the level of implicit debts in the context of supreme court jurisdiction on existing laws in the form of the social code and the civil service pension laws, then this would require that all pension entitlements of pension recipients under the German pension insurance scheme, and consequently all entitlements and in particular the pensions for civil servants, widows and surviving dependants, would have to be significantly reduced.

The disagreement between what is publicly proclaimed as a social payment and what still can be if pensions continue to be paid, and the pensions are not cut and (for once) the supreme court jurisdiction (of the Federal Constitutional Court in the year 2010) is simply ignored, is obvious. Even the abolition of all federal grants, which are laid down in a similar way to the legal regulations applicable to commercial companies, would not be enough to help avert a situation in Germany from when it should start to make its way to the official receiver. The notional Deutschland AG, i.e. Germany, would accordingly have had to make this move long ago.
Politics claims for itself different standards than it requires from the people and also the companies in Germany, which is all the more irritating since politics can actually only be the voice of the people, and if one feels able at the political level to make use of the possibility of pursuing a policy not in line with the constitution, and not to be the voice of the people any longer as soon as one has been elected, but to be able to burden people with debt against their will according to the principle “We politicians up here, you the people down there”, then everything is going wrong in this country – just as has also long been the case in other Euro countries.

That very fact that all of this is possible at all is solely because the collateral or securities that usually have be lodged and are required in the banking system no longer seem to apply in the case of countries, but as described above, all European countries no longer offer guarantees if it is assumed that Germany can be still the best-placed bankrupt country of the European Monetary Union, but is still bankrupt, and can only be kept afloat by expensive debts with corresponding costs for capital.
One wonders then how can it be possible that when it comes to the granting of loans, all considerations of collateral and security which would be applied strictly to a private person who wanted to take out a loan, are completely ignored when it comes to the granting of loans based on warranties and liabilities, which are assumed by one country for another country, when the first country does not have sufficient funds available in order to qualify as collateral. Especially since real estate ownership is not so easily liquidated in order to cover debts, since here land registry assets which are not auditable must be taken into account and shares in terms of mortgages in particular, i.e. land charges, could necessarily only be claimed by means of “Equalisation of Burdens” regulations.

The sole security therefore lies in the population of a country, and in terms of the earning power (income/tax) of these people, because the equity capital of banks can be no adequate security. This then escalates into bank rescue measures - in Spain there are even calls for a separate European Bank rescue Fund (Mr. Ackermann of the Deutsche Bank AG has also called for the same), which should apply in addition to the ECB and the ESM, which means: Even on application in Brussels, it is planned that the failure quotas of big business will be compensated for by means of public funds. This is above all a nationalisation of the individual losses of big business, which never runs up losses on balance, because banks never go bankrupt all together, but only individual, smaller institutes, which are in the hands of big business. This bank rescue scandal will happily be accepted by all the large popular parties of the EU, who will therefore be acting against the interests of all Europeans, unless someone finally puts up some resistance, such as that against the ESM
http://zukunft4deutschland.wordpress.com .

Let us therefore assume that we could in the future obtain enough earning power through the working income of the people of a country to pay off the debts, although it would still have to be clear that just the basic debts, irrespective of any further new debt, would take over 800 years to repay under normal conditions, so not only by leaving a basic level of subsistence for all the people who living in Germany today, but then also extended to the European Monetary Union for the repayment of debt, and also to their children and children’s children for generations to come. This is the point to which politicians have brought us!
It is therefore incomprehensible why there have not long since been riots, not only restricted to the bankrupt Germany but especially in other Euro supporting countries and against all credit institutions who are involved in the granting of loans in the form of liability commitments and guarantees under the rescue package obligations of the EFSF and the ESM. Instead, more bank and national support is proclaimed as the only possible alternative, in order to conceal the fact that the Euro Union is finished. Publicity work for which an advertising budget is available is completely lacking to politics.
So far there have been riots in Greece, and isolated protests in France and Germany. The demonstrations will spread dramatically according to what has already been reported in the press: We are bankrupt - and now cannot be helped by more borrowing and guarantees and subsidiary liabilities in the form of unlimited rescue package increases in the ESM. With such policies, we in the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Monetary Union find ourselves in a madhouse, where care benefits are paid to politicians in case of illness in addition to all their other benefits and allowances.
The fact that liabilities and guarantees by one or more bankrupt countries are still seen as sufficient security to make further loans to other countries which have long since been insolvent has long since brought matters to a head.
It was therefore no coincidence that Pervenche Berès (Chairman of the Currency Committee of the European Parliament) considered the end of the Euro a distinct possibility for the whole of the European Monetary as early as December 2011.
And in the same sense, the new President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, is now warning in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (13.04.2012, p. 1 and p. 4) under the heading “It will have to fall if necessary” against a chain reaction if anyone leaves the Euro. Schulz bemoans above all the creation of Schulz “parliament-free zones” by the recent crisis and pointed out that European integration and unity is by no means irreversible. “Europe can also fail”, he said, and added “Today we are in a situation in which this is a realistic scenario.”

It is common sense enough, if one evaluates the political manoeuvring as negative games. The administrative law specialist Christian Kirchberg is credited with the quote: “The resort to the casino is prohibited, because the bank always wins in the end.”All this political horse-trading, which turns the people of a country, whether voters or non-voters, into gamblers against their will, whether only with a small stake of the financial assets relating to the 92.5-95% of the total population, which is still 76 – 77 million people, who including the implicit debt are now deeply in the red to the tune of € 150,000.00 (per capita) and are therefore also turned into gamblers with their debts and also with their tax revenue – what a grotesque situation – such transactions would have to be declared null and void, and by legal provision which automatically prohibits them for anyone, but especially for governments. The failure to ratify the ESM Act, which is planed for 25th May 2012 in the Bundestag, would be entirely fit for this purpose, in order to prevent further excesses.

It is a travesty that we as ordinary citizens are not protected against such machinations, but are turned into debtors by those to whom we gave our vote in order to represent our interests. Instead they support this small rich proportion of the total population, who continue to enrich themselves through corresponding lending rates, margins and commissions. This in turn fosters the prosperity of the profits of banks and hence the survival of politics, which for decades has been guilty of mismanagement and drives these things to a head with regard to Germany, and from Germany to the other countries of the European Monetary Union, and also harms countries with a real, direct democracy and their citizens, although they can demonstrate control of power – and power always needs to be controlled – and are therefore the only ones who can guarantee stability in the long term. Unless they are also brought down in the Euro debacle, which has already been deliberately accentuated not only in Switzerland, whose leaders predict an ever greater descent into poverty for the next ten years, and also in the other German-speaking country, Austria, that the future will be characterised by poverty in the Euro zone. In this respect, every EU financial summit is no more than brazen effrontery, which is driving the millions of ordinary people into impoverishment and financial slavery, if they are not already at this point. 2.4 million Germans receive an hourly wage of maximum six Euros or even less. All the squabbling over a minimum wage with the setting of a lower wage limit for certain industries, and not nationwide, and which can still be negotiated by the collective agreement partners, are on this line; this discussion has long since moved away from considerations of social welfare. Unfortunately! It must also be noted: this is only one side of the coin. If this can be regarded at the moment as an extreme representation, this presentation still applies to the extent that the political conduct, such as for example on the legal establishment in the draft ESM Act, if in can obtain consent at all, will lead to increasing impoverishment, as more and more groups from the middle class of the ordinary people become poorer and the few 5-7.5% of the population become richer, although the levels for the general population will be driven down in their helplessness by government and opposition parties together.
In this respect, a grand coalition offers no prospect of any improvement, especially since the opposition parties have long since assured their majorities for this reduction of the payment levels, as at the top of the ESM, which is to be ratified in May immediately after the Landtag elections in Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia. An even greater evil than such a procedure by politics for a bankrupt country that should have long since made its way to the insolvency courts, can no longer be accepted by the people of the country, because the people of this country know that politics in Germany has led to bankruptcy, and is only trying to survive even longer by delaying insolvency. But this survival can only be criticized because the crash which can no longer be avoided, and delaying it further increasingly mean that people lose quota. This will affect older generations in particular, who after a crash will never again be able to regain their former purchasing power because income from gainful employment is no longer possible for them. At least theoretically, the activists must justifiably be wished strength and commitment for all actions which are secured by the basic law.

It may also be relevant to ask the question of what legal limits there are if arguments are made for a change or abolition of existing basic law. The decisive standard is the free democratic basic order. Efforts against the principle of free democratic order are subject to criminal penalties (the offence of sedition is generally known, but paragraph 90 b StGB should also be mentioned - unconstitutional denigration of constitutional organs). Associations and parties which are against the free democratic order can be banned. In the case of the parties only by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Efforts which are not detrimental to the free democratic order, but aim to change the existing system in essential points (in the sense of a direct democratic radical reform (real direct democracy) - not fake direct democracy as introduced into the discussion by politics), are not subject to such repression. Corresponding expressions of opinion and calls are covered by the right to freedom of expression.

In this respect, standing up against this political impudence of entry into force of a long-term binding ESM by German ratification, in accordance with this last statement, is also not only covered, i.e. protected, by the existing basic law of Germany, but is downright necessary in order to at least preserve some vestige of the already heavily eroded democracy of the German “constitutional” state. Every success must be wished to all creative people, all political newcomers, including those outside the current mainstream, since even a grand coalition, by which they aim to maintain the political status quo, is no longer sustainable. We need to think through and implement a change in the situation in Germany from the ground up, in order to eradicate what is currently happening with regard to debt policy, and never to let it happen again.
Debt must in the future be incurred only by virtue of will and consent, but no longer by politics, which acts for the benefit of big business, that wants to make money off the people and therefore maintains this bankruptcy policy from the point of view of ordinary people, because big business is not going into debt as a result of this policy, but only those who allow themselves to be forced into debt against their will and without any objection, and thereby earn money off the backs of the rescue packages – all the more so that the size of the rescue packages is inflated, and corresponding loans and other facilities of the investment departments of the banks are made available. And this greed is essential to current politics for survival, which is why they act as market criers for this clientele and with the unions, who for membership contributions – and with all understandable competition harmonization requirements regarding labour costs – have for twenty years been unable to allow an adjustment of real wages, and despite the calls of the Federal Labour Minister von der Leyen to finally guarantee realistic wage increases; on the contrary, when inflation is taken into account, further losses in purchasing power will have to be accepted, despite the latest wage increases. In this context, it is interesting (Bild am Sonntag of 1.5.12, p. 22), what Frank Bsirske, Verdi leader said, “What annoys me is that there are still many political leaders who simply refuse to believe the current social problems, although for example there are 2.4 million people who have to work for € 6 and less.” This gives rise to the question: Why does he not oppose this with the backing of Verdi, which is what he and all the unions are actually paid for?
In this connection it should be noted that the election campaigners for the Landtag and Bundestag elections should get by without election costs being paid by the taxpayer – this is a demand of the Alliance for Democracy – on which any further statement is unnecessary; legal political party funding - just like the contributions to parties and trade unions – is simply outmoded, because supposedly democratic parties, not only because of monetary mismanagement, act undemocratically on fundamental issues and have lost any sense of democracy. Legal political party funding only makes sense if the use of the tax funds of the people of the country results in democracy and not authoritarianism. To support the so-called popular parties in the undistinguishing mediocrity of today’s politics would be a disgrace of politics, a disgrace of the people against themselves.
In our article “Leading politicians”we described how each of the major parties has a Vogel (= bird) – we talked in this respect about birds of paradise. We in turn must have not birds, but bats in the belfry if we continue to let these birds rule over us, because it is we, the people, who are the boss. We have the ability to put a stop to this, in favour of a social order which allows us to determine when we want bankruptcy, and no longer allow it to be imposed on us, as has happened over the last 60 years in Germany. It is amazing that even the babyboomers have never thought about what Norbert Röttgen should have done otherwise, if they are politically committed, such as the newcomers of the conservative parties, opposition leader or Minister President of the largest German state, Nordrhein-Westfalen, where the Landtag elections take place on 13th May of this year. They would have come to the only sensible and inescapable result, to use the words of Dr. Merkel, that the interests of the people can only be safeguarded by immediate currency reform. The longer this is delayed, the less will remain for support, pension and benefit recipients, in addition to surviving dependants, because so much money has been squandered in the meantime, which in the end will be totally lacking.

The bankruptcy of Germany as still the best bankrupt country of all already bankrupt countries of the European Monetary Union, in which we live immersed in lies, tricks and the suppression of truth, for which further support will be used only for the artificial delaying insolvency, which would be an offence for normal business, also cannot be avoided by the hope that dreamt-of growth in the future could achieve more if the conditions for such growth could prove to be feasible; because any growth will allow no more than a slight reduction of existing basic debt, whose repayment is already estimated to take nearly one thousand years, if indeed it can be influenced at all.
But this would not put an end to the bankruptcy of the country, because it is already with us; it would not offer rating agencies the requirements to further delay total bankruptcy in Germany, which is legally prohibited to commercial companies, by means of government bonds and related requirements for their sale and their low interest rates, because creditors are being damaged, and in the company which is the state, these creditors are all the citizens of the country; and what is required by an open declaration of insolvency, as is also required for companies and private persons by going to the insolvency court.
With an accurate valuation and rejection of the purchase of these junk bonds, i.e. government bonds, immediate bankruptcy as described here would be with us overnight. The only reason for the delaying of insolvency is the good nature and inertia of the Germans brought about by irresponsible election promises and the far too late crash. In true accounting terms, Germany has been insolvent for a long time.
If in the annual report for 2012 growth has been forecast at 0.7%, which is well below the average growth of all countries published by the World Bank, it is obvious that the industrial nation of Germany has degenerated into one of the tail-enders of the countries with good growth rates. And it must not be overlooked in this respect that this 0.7% of German growth for 2012 can only be forecast at all because this 0.7% already contains growth injections, as we previously had in the past by means of credit-funded growth, with all the negative planning consequences already described, and because the countries of the European Monetary Union supported by German rescue package contributions, which would actually have been insolvent long ago without this support from supporting countries, are only enabled in this way to pay for further imports from Germany, so that we can continue to maintain our export levels. If one were to eliminate from this 0.7% German growth the share of imports of supported countries paid for from German rescue package funds, it can be assumed, subject to closer examination, that even Germany would probably fall below the zero-growth mark.

It becomes all the more evident that further considerations on improving growth have long since reached their limits, because this 0.7% growth for 2012 would also not have increased if rescue package funds to supported countries had remained within the country and been granted instead as loans to Germans or passed on in the form of benefit increases; the same demand created by these exports to supported countries, and paid for by German rescue package contributions, would then have been replaced when these contributions were withdrawn by a corresponding increase in domestic demand.
It is therefore not right to use for this purpose any additional funds, which in relation to the rescue package contributions to supported countries only make up a tiny fraction of funds for the promotion of growth in the European Monetary Union. And since the Marshall Plan growth injections are to be made via the ESM, they mean nothing more than further (unlimited) rescue package increases already made possible via the ESM, for which the required majority will always be found, because all participating countries depend on it. What dissimulation, which goes to show however that politics and all the economic advisers concerned with these issues have long since manoeuvred themselves into a cul-de-sac. This is also confirmed by a statement made on ZDF by Prof. Dr. Beatrice Weder di Mauro, one of the leading economic experts, who announced that consideration had already been given to the establishment of a joint debt repayment fund for all Euro countries, instead of the ESM Act, in which all debts of these countries would be consolidated, in the same way as junk bonds have already been consolidated in a bad bank. It is not clear why the ESM or this debt repayment fund should come up with any different results – they are in effect the same. From the current popular parties therefore, nothing more can be expected than the continued delaying of the existing insolvency and the continuing impoverishment of the people. As long as the Euro crash does not come for all countries (two or three countries, such as Greece, Spain, Italy or Portugal would suffice) and a currency reform nevertheless takes place, this would be the only possibility for Germany, whose people have already become much poorer, the last possibility of withdrawing from the Euro Union.

Irrelevant twoddle! And it must be assumed, since we are already bankrupt, that there is no way to escape this situation, unless by the insidious dragging of the matter through the Federal Government and its parliamentary apparatus. The Germans are being served up with nonsense beyond compare – by politics and by the whole German Bundestag and the federal government including the opposition parties, whether green or red or any other colour. Whoever understands so little of economics and still makes up the main parties in the form of the coalition parties as a clientele party for big business, can practise only the rudest and most unlikely political tactics, for the sake of money and the greed for power. This is however unacceptable for people who want to see a social system with a corresponding social order implemented by politics, and perhaps believed to be living in such a system, and now must realise that this was not so.
The people will have to ensure in future that the money of the 5-7.5% of super rich constantly returns into the economic cycle, and no longer serves for the enslavement of 92.5-95% of the people of a country.
In this sense, at least some will play a role, as described in the article “2011 System correction”. It will thereby be essential to derail the current situation to the extent that others must no longer be allowed to determine that all the people of a country should be forced into debt against their will, that they are forced to be responsible for damages incurred by political gambling, that private bank losses are nationalised, and the people thereby forced to be responsible for them. The same is happening throughout the entire Monetary Union and especially in Germany (Bundesbank, Landesbank), German ECB contributions for bank rescues and corresponding IMF contributions and for all private banks with state participation and national banks in their losses, such as Hypo Real Estate. This can be seen as a measure of delaying insolvency and mismanagement in general.
Starting points to counteract this are available from some creative minds. Such creative minds should be available where the political representation of a people lies. The opposite is the case. The new President of the European Parliament, Mr Martin Schulz, said:

“I understand every citizen who asks whether we can justify the risks of the Euro rescue. I hope that the answer of the German Government is: Yes, we know that these are huge risks, but we enter into them because not doing so would bring even disproportionately greater risks. The Federal Government should not allow more space to those who describe their politics as an act of unreason.”

With regard to the words “disproportionate risks”, Mr. Schulz commits himself no further, namely as to what these disproportionately great risks are, and above all declines to say who will ultimately be responsible for them.
To him alone, severe poverty appears to be no risk. So rather collective poverty following currency reform. This has already been demanded by the Alliance for Democracy in the open letter to the Federal Government, instead of the delaying of insolvency, and its costs for Germany and the rest of Europe, by the Federal Government, which would be prohibited in any other area of the economy; this also applies for the United States and therefore for the Western world. Let us take note, let us wake up and see to what state Dr. Merkel and Dr. Schäuble (long-serving as jointly responsible for all mismanagement of the conservative parties and their policies of failure and currently with his finger on the trigger together with the Chancellor, making up the team which has incurred the greatest debts of all times) have brought us. And all of this despite opposition! It is therefore clear that opposition today must be seen in a completely different light.

A few related figures:
Germany
Explicit debts: > 80%
Risky debts of German banks: (incl. debts of private persons) 200%
Sub-total 280%;
Implicit debts: > 350%;
Grand total > 630%

Great Britain
Explicit debts: about 180%
Risky debts of German banks: (incl. debts of private persons) 320%
Sub-total 500%;
Implicit debts: > 700%;
Grand total > 1200%

Spain as an intermediate example lies with all values between Germany and Great Britain. The percentages relate to the gross domestic product (GDP), which for Germany is approx. € 2.4 trillion. This results for Germany in a total debt of € 15 trillion.

The current policy cannot therefore be pursued any longer. The Alliance for Democracy is against this persistent, unending fear for an increasingly poor population: Rather a quick and painful end in a crash, which would still leave something for the people, rather than continuing in the same old way for the benefit of various cliques of failures in politics and business, who can no longer do anything else, with the aid of politicised jurisdiction and a politicised press, than to conceal, to lie and to gloss over the impalatable truth. What politics, business and the banks imagine in their own minds can be twisted and misrepresented. But one thing cannot be concealed: Politics has failed. It has been prepared to surrender the confidence, the capital and the future of Germany and Europe for the sake of retaining its own power.
Bankrupt is bankrupt. That is the plain and simple fact!