Archiv der Kategorie: Various

In this area you can find additional topics.

Who is responsible?

The voters break away from the established politicians. As counter measure they show muscles, by taking over the populist behavior of their political opponents. They use the same rabble-rousing that they actually criticize. Although the European Union, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, APEC and other free trade agreements continually integrate the regions to bigger bundles, more and more nationalistic movements emerge globally. This washes politicians to the top, who use basic insecurities of the voters, in order to receive their votes. But it is also a matter of those, who give their vote to those tendencies as well as the competitors, who are not taking these fears seriously and thus lose continuously votes to the new alternatives. The question that arises is: Who is actually responsible for this swing to the right?

Alternativen

Do populist movements win due to particularly good offers? Or do the voters desire exactly the offered solutions? Or do the established parties have simply no replies? Let’s look at the three groups.

  • The winners
    The new, political movements, generally called populists, discovered for themselves the virtual opportunities of the Internet and the mass media as a direct way to the voter. On the one hand they offer information that supplies new food for stereotypes – false reports concerning social benefits and wrong doing of refugees. At the same time, they reuse positive slogans and made it thereby even into the key media – starting with “we are the people” up to the disguise by using the brand of Anonymous for a Facebook account. Original contents and practical solutions are not available. However, the winners achieve to convince the electors and thus to change the political life.
  • The voters
    Since the political turn in Germany the political landscape is changing. On the one hand the large voter groups of the new federal states were integrated. At the same time the follow-up of the PDS brought a new political perspective into the frozen political arena. While the portion of non-voters between 1972 and 1983 varied between 8.9% and 10.9%, we have between 1990 and 2009 from 22.2% to 29.2% of electors that do not vote. This is a large potential that can be targeted by new political alternatives. It gets interesting within the next parliamentary elections. Does the portion of non-voters will go down noticeably? Which percentage will the new parties receive? The voters decide on the composition of the parliaments and are thereby the real responsible people. With their choice of a party, they give them the power – whether it offers solutions or not.
  • The losers
    Many years of political work, the wish to be re-elected, the party discipline and the imperishable memory of the media have softened the established parties. Politicians protect their position, by telling what the voters want to hear – even if this leads to the fact that one does not represent a personal opinion. On the one hand stable positions and values were solidified, but on the other hand the realpolitik after the elections shows that the realization of the noble goals falls behind the original aspirations. Professional politicians receive their performance review with the election. Who could be surprised that they align their speeches to political surveys. With few exceptions personal attitudes are withdrawn for the party discipline. The statements lose their actuality, if past quotations are pulled over years out of their context and used against the candidates. While at the beginning all established parties turned against the populism of the new ones, they notice that without this style, large groups of voter break off. Even so that they would like always be asked, there are no answers. Politicians use the speaking time, despite repetitive questioning to rattle off by heart learned texts. The established parties contribute substantially with their unclear positions and unreliable offers to the decline of the political culture.

Bottom line: Election results are made by voters. Politicians make more or less concrete offers, which try to tempt the voter. Currently a large part of citizens do not want to hear tales from the established parties.
The voters and the traditional professional politicians are responsible for these developments. The voters hide their decisions behind doubtful reasons: We show you, who has the power; I do not elect as a punishment for the parties; Those are right. The established political landscape lost its purpose due to decades of continuity and political routines as well as the career plans of the politicians.

Without money there is nothing to share

It is an interesting idea that the computer opens up the door to new ways of economy. Marginal costs dissolve, resources are better used by sharing and a new scope can be covered. However the question comes up, where does the products and services come from that are shared without stipulations and costs. Is there anything at all to share without money?

Sharing02

Good examples provide the new offers in the Internet, like Airbnb, Ouishare, and Uber. In these cases third parties are empowered to deliver services based on software that connects customers with providers via PC, smartphones or other devices. Let’s look at Uber. What needs this business?

  • A medium
    The Alpha and Omega of this business model is the access to the web page of Uber. Most people connect to the Internet no matter where they are. With this pervasive connectivity, everybody can log in from everywhere and make a contract.
  • Operating material
    The most important operational fund is the vehicle that is used to transport the clients. This vehicle is not an operational fund from Uber. It belongs to the driver, who also bears all cost – purchase, service, tires, insurances etc. The condition of the vehicle is not checked commercially, as in the case of a taxi company. The normal MOT examinations concentrate only on the fundamental roadworthiness of the vehicle, not on its commercial use.
  • Personnel
    The drivers are not employed by Uber, but private drivers, who are not subject to any regulations. Work time and skills only have to be compliant with general requirements. They do not receive any other incentives, like salaried employees – e.g. holidays, pension plan. Nobody checks, to what extent the drivers are able to fulfill their services.
  • Guidelines
    Since they are no official taxi companies, rules that traditional taxi businesses have to fulfill are omitted – standard taxi meters or prescribed safety installations, like a radio equipment or a special alarm system for the driver.
  • Insurances
    The drivers actually do not furnish services, but offer lifts on a private base, most of them will operate without commercial insurances. Due to the today’s insurance tariffs, it is even possible that the existing insurance even do not cover the passengers at all. Not to mention any kind of insurances for the drivers or passengers in case of sickness or accident.

The advantages of this approach for all are obvious.

  • Uber gets paid for brokering via the Internet. And that is where the business and the responsibility for Uber ends.
  • The drivers benefit from a business model that they operate without the appropriate training and without the obligation of following professional rules.
  • For the passengers it is cheaper and easy to use.

So far the whole seems to work.

If you compare the costs of the commercial providers wit the Uber drivers, you might wonder, where these costs are hidden in this new business model.

Where are the operative costs allocated? The Uber member pays all the costs plus the part that has to be paid to Uber. The costs of Uber are only the operation of the website and the marketing.

How to pay the tax for giving somebody a ride privately? Even if they drive on a cost-covering base, a cash flow between customer and driver happens that is taxable. How can the revenue be proven at all without taxi meters?

Who pays one for the increased probability of accidents of these „professional “Uber driver? Eventually the community of the insured people pays the costs of damages that result from their increased mileages.

And who pays for the personnel damage that results in the context of carriage? It starts with injuries that result from defective vehicles (e.g. sharp edges). It ends after an accident, in which passengers are heavily injured, permanently damaged, or in case of death, leave a family behind that has to be supported. As always the costs are distributed on the shoulders of the social community.

Eventually the Uber case is a good example of this new sharing economy, where business models target to privatize profits and to socialize costs.

Bottom line: Business models that offer services outside of the established commercial rules are introduced through the back door. At the same time, they exploit the social systems, by not making their contributions – e.g. insurances, taxes, employee services. These businesses are possible due to a special sharing rhetoric that monetarizes the bartering of the past – because the providers always receive their commission in the respective currency. After all there is nothing to share without money.