Comment by derda | Hacker News Reader

Comment by derda | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I see it more as a failure of subsidies. Those companies were built for the sole purpose of grabbing government money. Not only is the installation of solar panels highly subsidized in Germany, these companies were often also founded in economically poor regions in eastern Germany which would grant further support. A few years ago there was a real alternative energy goldrush, companies expanded quickly, IPOs happened etc. . The money was plenty and the companies lived well of it. Then the Chinese catched up, and afaik there was/is no real reason to not buy the Chinese product since the German companies had no real advance in quality or technology (maybe they did not innovate, since they thought they were in a comfortable position?). Now the subsidies for installations would go to China. So basically the tax money supposed to prop up German industries supports a Chinese price-dumping scheme. And if that was not worse enough our energy prices are rising and rising (I think I pay about 0,25€ / kWh) (about a third of it is going to alternative energy subsidies). And don't get me started on the problems with keeping the grid at 50Hz....

Reversal of German subsidies and subsidies on Chinese side (that's what you mean by price dumping, right?) causing the German side to implode => failure of subsidies. Right.

Also, I would replace "the sole purpose of grabbing government money" with "wouldn't happen if not for the subsidies". But then the spin would be different, eh?

We have a similar thing going on here in the UK with the feed in tariff. Companies have been trying to sell solar to people in a country that gets an average of 1340 hours of sunshine a year (which is obviously far less up north than it is down south).

Yes, they are grabbing government money, but this was the idea.

Most people won't lift their asses, if not getting paid for it.

I want Germany to be green, if it only gets this way with money, I'm glad to spend it.

> if it only gets this way with money, I'm glad to spend it.

I'd be perfectly okay with that if you only spent yours, not mine. Since when has socialism and planned economy become acceptable on HN?

Acceptable? What on earth are you talking about? Do you think because some people use a news board they all of a sudden have to have the same world view?

Further the Germans who have had democracy have voted for (a kind of) socialism and (a kind of) planned economy for the last 60 years, and they are in the top 5 healthiest economies of the world (although not largest), and their long term prospects with regards to manufacturing and exportation are much better than the US.

Are you a german citizen?

I don't think you're using "socialism"[1] or "planned economy"[2] correctly. There's a large difference between a "mixed economy"[3] and "planned"/"socialism".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Socialism and planned economy seem to be working pretty damn well and leading to countries with much higher standards of living and social metrics than those which do not.

Perhaps we should ask since when is living in a bubble and declaring communitarian measures as failures acceptable in HN.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not...

Starting with the obvious, the USSR and China were/are two of the largest experiments in socialism/planned economies. The USSR failed pretty spectacularly, while China's communistic policies are continually losing out to the spread of capitalism within it's own borders.

Meanwhile, in Europe, some of the more socialistic countries (Greece, for example) are failing economically while a strongly capitalistic (comparatively) Germany is continually having to bail them out.

I really don't see any argument that supports your claims, though I'd like to point out the answer is not pure socialism or pure capitalism. It's a happy medium, the million dollar question is exactly where that medium resides.

(Please don't respond with outliers like the resource rich Scandinavian countries that have small, extremely heterogenous populations)

Okay, take Germany: fully subsidized education, high taxation rate, socialized health care, important subsidies to public infrastructure. England: public, socialized health care and social services. Latin American countries: despite my personal opposition to many of the so-called populist governments, the trend in the last 10 years has been a reversion of neoliberal policies towards more social services and public investment, and it has been succesful in, at the very least, reversing 15 years of damage by American-imposed neoliberal policies.

The best the US has done in the past times is to reduce the amount of spending in social services and public infrastructure, creating the highest level of income inequality in the last few decades. Countries following the same policies are going the same way: a small cadre of extremely wealthy elites and a massive level of poverty elsewhere, with a minuscule middle class.

Right, because the Official Religion of HN is Ayn Randism, in case anyone didn't get the memo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com