A commonplace of german politics

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer


Wiki: guidelines

30 July, 2010 (19:01) | political trade, wiki | By: Aerar

(German version published on 5 May, 2010)

In my first drafts for a political program (German) I have examined guidelines (German), which should give the program a direction and which could serve as a basis for concrete political answers. In the beginning there will be no complete set of guidelines and especially in special themes they still need to be found. The guidelines I want to present here therefore are more general and probably most of the existing political parties would, at least officially, agree with them, even though many in my eyes are far from following them:

  • The civil state
  • The concept of a civil state (German) should lead to a stronger identification and collaboration of the state and its citizens. After all the state is the representative, which is created by the citizens themselves to give them an agent for their common and greater interests. The institution of the state at many places is to far from this idol. There are too many servant or organs of the state who are closer to their own interests or to those of the abstract idea of the state than to those of the citizens which they originally would have to serve. So in many cases the state patronizes its citizens and acts against the interests of its citizens.

    On the other hand many citenzens consider the state as an opponent, which tehy do not want to support or which they want to fight in worst case. The citizens as well often try to get their personal interests realized even though that would in much stronger means would lead to a drawback for the state. As long as the interests of the state and its citizens can’t be brought together there will always be problems which would strain both, the state and the citizens.The state is not more but not less than the agent of its citizens who on the other hand are a part of the sate.

  • Transparency
  • The actions of the state need to be transparent for the citizens as the state is the agent of its citizens and owes them accountability. This transparency (German) is a debt the state has to fulfil withou being asked for. The citizen on the other hand has the duty to evaluate the actions of its state and to influence it.

  • Simplicity
  • Politics need to be as simple as possible (German). This means simplicity in the inner logic and the reasons for political decision. Complex measures might be capable of realizing detailed effects but nevertheless have to be avoided as they do more damage than positive. This is because complex measures often profed to fail because they could in praxis not be realized on this detailed level because the creators of such complex measures too often do not understand them fully themselves. In addition complex measures have many unexpected results and loopholes which can’t be eliminated completely even by experts. The realisation of complex measures is very difficult which leads to a large amount of failures in their realisation and they lead to a larger amount of beaurocracy. Complex measures in the end solve problems worse than simple measures.
    Above that complex measure are hardly or even not understandable for the citizens, especially as they usually are no experts. A measure that can not be understood could in the best be followed but never be accepted. The people lose some of their quality of live when they are forced to live by rules which they do not understand. The principle of transparacy is undermined by complex measures and fairness can’t be reached without comparability. The civil state is not practiced when the state patronises his citizens with measures they can not understand. Complex measures are uneffective and are contradictory to almost any other guideline of this program. The simple measure are a basis of this political program.

  • Fairness
  • The state has to consider the interests of its citizens in its politic. The understanding which measures are fair will nevertheless cover a wide range among the citizens and among the representatives of the state. The consensus at least would be that everyone is in favour of a fair treatment and that there are different ideas of fairness (German).
    A widely accepted agreement of what is fair possibly only could be reached if within a broad discussion criteriae for fair measures would be stated. As long this is not done, fairness will stay a meaningless construct which without consequences could be used to support any political opinion. But fairness would not be reached that way.

  • Quality of life
  • The state as keeper of the interests of its citizens has the duty to increase their quality of life. This duty like all measures of the state is limited to such fields where the citizens as single persons could not invoke the necessary measures themselves. The state is not alone setting the ground in this case but may also enforce real actions.
    As already with the fairness as well at the Wie schon bei der Gerechtigkeit ist es auch bei der quality of life (German) accepted criteriae would be needed in advance which would define that construct.

I do not understand it

29 July, 2010 (17:28) | elections, parties | By: Aerar

(German version published on 2 May, 2010)

I am not really surprised when a study of the Communication Labs Ulm and the University of Hohenheim comes to the result that the agendas of the parties for the elections in NRW are hard to understand (German). After all I thing here politicians are writing for politicians and not for the voters. They want to express their goal comprehensively and absolute correctly. A good aim which unfortunally is not reached when the agenda can be understood only by few people. So the agendas do not differ much from site long terms and conditions that are provided by companies. One should really read them but hardly anyone does it, because it is no fun if you understand only little and in the end the lifetime is too limited to read them all. What a pity.

Household fee instead of GEZ

19 July, 2010 (17:54) | finance, media | By: Aerar

(German version published on 2 May, 2010)

Believing an expertise of the constitutional law expert Paul Kirchhof there are no constitutional concerns about a household based fee instead of the current device based fee. This would be in contradiction with prior reports from October of the last year which came to a different conclusion:

my translation: Fees may not be charged by the government, that will be stated in the expertise of Paul Kirchhof. Charging the fees by the finance office will not be possible. (German)  …

I don’t know exactly how these two expertises are connected and how the change of interpretation could be explained. At least this Paul Kirchhof got my sympathy with his proposals for a simplifies tax law. And here also it is the simplifying which makes the new proposals attractive to me. In my eyes this would make surplus the administrative expensive individual fee on devices, which I consider to be completely senseless as it nevertheless effects all households the creativity of the broadcasters ensures that that will stay so in future – which they last proved by inventing the fees for “new devices”.

It may be a reason to drop the fees alltogether especially when considering that the broadcasters seem the lack this creativity when planning and generating their programs. But on the limited view to how to collect the fees I would prefer a version needing less administration. Not alone as almost any household directly or indirectly profits from the program anyway.

So I do not understand the wish to keep a “fair” individual fee model as it does not basically questions the paying of a fee. I think that is again just about those people “who do not have a TV set (German)“. But I for example, do not have a car, nor do I go into the opera and my children do not visit a public school – I think then something could be done there as well.

Wiki: Sketching a political program

18 July, 2010 (12:46) | editorial, wiki | By: Aerar

(German version published on 1 May, 2010)

Basic situation
Considering the drawbacks of dealing with political themes in a blog, I have decided to start in addition a Wiki where I will try to develope a draft of a new political program:

Aerar-Politischer Programmentwurf (German)

The Wiki as platform
I believe that a wiki is a good technical platform for such a project as articles could be developed over a long period there. Each article could concentrate on one certain theme and relations between different articles could be shown by categories and links. In addition a wiki is an open platform that allows others to join in and participate.

Effects of the Aerar-Wiki to the Aerar-Blog
The wiki and the blog will be two projects which basically work independendly from each other but which may have overlaps. Within the articles of this blog I will try to add links to related wiki articles and I will present new contents of the wiki in extra posts within this blog. Such posts will be marked with the prefix “Wiki:” to make it easier to tell them apart from the normal blog posts. So the posts about current events within this blog will still continue as they worked before.

Goals of the political program draft
Within the draft ideas should be dealt with more intensely and they should be described more exactly. In long terms by this not only a basic idea should be sketched and motivated. In the end there should stand concrete and practible suggestions for the feasibility. This causes the author to deal with political realities, to consider side effects and to see potential conflicts with other political interests.
So the aim of the wiki is to develope widespreadly new and practical ideas which might have a usage in real politics. Therein it is only one aspects whether this high expetations could actually be reached in the end. First it is important to give an impulse for a political development of opinions to the authors and readers by an intense and ongoing workout of certain political themes.

The (political) blog as media

17 July, 2010 (22:56) | editorial, media | By: Aerar

(German version published on 30 April, 2010)

With this blog I decided to temporarily inform about recent political events and to offer an opinion as a basis for a discussion. Beside of the limited number of readers and the little available time of the author I noticed some principle limits which probably other blogs do share. Especially two things got into my focus:

The alertness of blogs is just short:

The nature of blog posts in most cases gives them just a short alertness period. Especially in political blogs only few people will read the posts from the previous year. With recent news this is no problem as the world turns on and on demand it is always possible to link to older posts in case they got another recent relevance. But many articles deal with basic questions which are of longer topicality than the alertness for the blog article dealing with the theme.

Blog posts often are less recondite:

When I write a blog post I often just react on certain key events which I present and comment shortly. With this in my opinion I have done the main job of a blog: blogs mainly serve to spread certain pieces of information, to give new interpretations and allow discussion among the readers.

To provide this service I accepted, like many other blogs, certain limitations:

  • Topicality
  • Mainly I react on recent political events and try to present them promptly. Even though of course nobody forbids me to write about other events this mechanismn I follow is limiting my pool of themes. I think this is owed to the medium of blog which is a recent one.

  • Humour
  • To be read one has to offer something interesting. Pure spreading of information is nice but when you want to offer something special this is not enough. Therefore I add interpretations of my own to evaluate the news I present. I often used an ironical, partly polemic way to write. And I want to continue to do so, because I think my posts are more entertaining this way and this style of writing is capable to start thinking things over and discussing them. When self reflection and discussion among the readers does not take place it, of course, is a one way presentation.

  • Little analysis
  • Many blog posts simply report or even comment but seldom offer solutions. Or if they provide solutions they often stick to slogans or demands which on the first look seem senseful. Nevertheless the post seldom questions those theories or even considers how to implement such claims and which side effects that would have.

  • Abbreviation
  • The readability of a blog is important as blog that is not read could hardly have any impact. Long posts often look a bit scary to potential readers and therefore few blog posts are longer than a onepager.

    Within this scope hardly any theme could be presented properly. Even if one tries an analysis of the theme one could just pick a part of the theme and only some aspects. A deeper subsumption in the related context is literally impossible. For myself as a blogger in addition the problem is that due to the limited alertness it does not seem “worthwhile” to write longer and laborious articles. All in all I am quite thrifty with longer posts

Unknowingly all this limits were clear to me but seeing them written down shows me that blogs at least in one way do not differ from classic print mediae: “Nothing is as old as the blog post from yesterday”. Leastwise blog posts could be found easily after a long time within the Internet and some are even commented then. But I have the hardly surprising surmise that blog posts are not muich read a few days after the publishing.

Badly calculated

26 May, 2010 (18:42) | elections, federal states, parties | By: Aerar

(German version published on 25 April, 2010)

“Nach der aktuellen Umfrage von tns Emnid im Auftrag des Magazins “Focus” kommt die CDU NRW bei der Sonntagsfrage zur Landtagswahl am 9. Mai auf 38 Prozent. Die SPD hingegen liegt bei 34 Prozent, Die Grünen bei 11 Prozent, die FDP bei 8 Prozent und die Linkspartei bei 6 Prozent. Das zeigt klar: Schwarz-Gelb ist weiter vor Rot-Grün!“ (my translation: “Following a recent poll of tns Emnid for the magazine “Focus” the CDU in Nordrehinwestpfalen will get 38 percent of the votes in the election on May 9th. The SPD would gain 34 percent, Die Grünen 11 percent, the FDP 8 percent and the Linkspartei 6 percent. This shows clearly: The black and yellow coalition is clearly in front of red and green“), says the CDU NRW Blog.

This seems wrong for several reasons. One reason of course is that the value of such polls generally have to be questioned. Especially here only one specific poll has been picked. In addition it is the question whether the one percent which is stated would count for an additional seat in parliament. Maybe but there is nothing said about that.

It would not make really sense anyway as not even this postulated percent could be trusted in this prognosis. Here are obviously rounded values which are used which do allow different interpretation as well. Like:

SPD: 34,4% (rounded: 34%)
Grün: 11,4% (rounded: 11%)
Together: 45,8% (rounded: 46%)

CDU: 37,6% (rounded: 38%)
FDP: 7,6% (rounded: 8%)
Together: 45,2% (for the friends of the CDU NRW rounded 45%)

This simple statistic mistakes happen all the time and could maybe be excused if they would not rely on the CDU Landesverband Nordrhein-Westfalen as follows from the contact data. How shall a party manage the budget of a federal country if it is not even able to interprete a poll correctly? Even if its post were statiscally correct it only shows how afraid the party is of losing the elections and which little advantages are taken as a success.

Nevertheless I would not bet that the other parties would have done it better.

Re critique

11 May, 2010 (19:12) | media, particulars, parties, political trade | By: Aerar

(German version published on 31 March, 2010)

I have to admit that a certain FDP bashing currently (not without course) is quite modern. Therefore one needs to be careful not simply to call “Boooh” by reflex if the party’s name is mentioned and of course should not believe in everything shown on TV. So I relate to a guest post the employee of the FDP faction in the German Bundestag Steffen Rutter has written at Carta. (German) No matter how much the Carta editors welcome this essay, I by the same degree disagree with it and therefore take it as what it was intended for, as a base for a discussion.

The first thing I dislike is the polemic style which by so-called “rules” does generalize above the allowed. Maybe as an excuse one could claim that the film in the “monitor” show was ironically – but it was not polemic in my oppinion. So the guest post already made a bad start for a factual discussion.

I part the view of the author that the title of the WDR show is misleading, as in my eyes too it only deals marginally with the content. But if the editors propose models of their own I would not call this advertising.

“Rule 1″)
The tergiversation into word definitions (”Stabilisierungsmaßnahmen”) I consider as useless as the hint to the fact that the WDR itself profits of the bail out measures. Mr. Rutter neither answers one of the core questions of the film, why the creditors of banks, which lost their money in risky transactions, should regain their money more than those who invested their money into medium-sized businesses. This is not, as the author wants us make to believe about the advantages of the creditors but in fact it is about those of the debitors who would loose credibility, influence or even existance if they were not able to pay their debts.

“Rule 2″)
Here Steffen Rutter puts facts into such wrong connections that it is close to a lie. First he makes a forced deal, which at the time of its making was considered highly risky and inattractive, now when it haven’t come that worse, look like a profitable deal. In addition he does not care to mention that the debts of the HRE were paid to its debitors. But the HRE belongs to the government as the SoFFin does too. So where did the money come from in the end that has been paid back?

“Rule 3″)
Here the author tries to summon the systematic relevance which in my eyes had never been proved yet. Unfortunally I can’t confute them with my naive thoughts. But implicitly I take from his word that medium-sized businesses are not systemically relevant. Because when Mr. Rutter tells us, that here things are compared which cannot be compared, he forgets to mention that the company in the film is just one of many companies. Unfortunally it was just impossible to have them all with the film.

“Rule 4″)
With questioning the expert’s expertise Rutter at last makes a point, which he immediately loses by his polemic (”Pippi Langstrumpf”) behaviour. Also in my opinion experts should always be put in question, especially if they are explicitely chosen. For any idea, no matter how absurd, somewhere will be an expert who would confirm it. But this applies for both sides.

“Rule 5)
Whatever this section has to do with stereotypes, I don’t understand it. Neither I could not see which FDP delegate could be meant. I admit that I might have been inattentive while watching the film but the only FDP delegate I remember was Mr. Westerwelle. But no matter which delegate was really meant in my opinion delegates always speak in the name of their parties if they do not explicitely mention that they are stating their private opinion. This is even accepted by the parties themselves which are very quickly on the scene to dissociate from such “private opinions”.

Does not exist. Pure polemic and not even really funny. More pityful, how here the chance was wasted to name the important points of the discussed film which seems quite unsystematic to me.

Oh god, what kind of people do they employ at the FDP Bundestag faction? And is Carta really sure to welcome this guest post? At least, and that has to be mentioned explicitely to be fair, this guest post is marked as a “personal opinion” and so does not reflect the opinion of the FPD faction or even the whole party.

Easing lay-off protection?

8 May, 2010 (16:57) | economy, proposals | By: Aerar

(German version published on 26 March, 2010)

Within a study the OECD is demanding to ease the lay-off protection in germany (German) and in fact there are many good reasons to ease or even end the lay-off protection. Currently there is an unbalance in the relation between employers and employees. While the employee is allowed to give notice at any time without naming any reasons the employer does not have this easy option. In extreme situations this drives employers to misinterpreted self-defence and makes them looking for title=”Vertrauensverlust” href=””>fabricated lay-off reasons (German) to get rid of disagreeable employees.

Another argument for an eased lay-off protection would be that competition and productivity would get strenghtened, if employers had the free decision which and how many employeers they want to occupy in the current market situation. Both number and qualifications of needed employees are subject of continous changes. Often even well-established employees could constrain the work flow even if they do not legally misbehave. This may be if they lack needed qualification or the will to work. Above that it is hard to understand why an employer should be enjoined how to make his planning.

An eased lay-off protection would make recruitment of new employees more attractive and so employers would be motivated to employ new people, rather than weight the existent ones with overtime and other troubles. This way the existent work load could be distributed more equally among the workers. Protected jobs on the other hand disadvantage the new comers and the unemployed and could lead to long term unemployment and unemployment among young people in worst case. In the end there is just a certain amount of work and an employee who can’t be demissed blocks the job of a possible follower.

But there are drawbacks of an eased lay-off protection as well which in most cases are connected with social responsibility. Generally the social responsibility of the employer can’t be denied. This is already because of the huge previligees the employer has compared to his employees. Above that all companies directly or indirectly profit from the ressources of the community. Be it by polluting the environment, the usage of public property or by recieving subsidies. In boom times employers usually profit more than their employees and the entrepreneurial risks has to be reconsidered after the massive bail outs in the latest economic crisis.

One possible way of socializing profits would be the unconditional basic income, which indirectly would let everyone participate on the successes of the economy if it were connected to the development of the economy. But more problematically it were with the individual income of the single employees. One who would lose a well payed job even with a guarantueed unconditional basic income would experience deep cuts in his financial situation. This imponderability would influence his long term planning and would let him act more cautious in his role as a consumer. People who do not know whether they still have a job in a few months would not build a new house and would try to save some money instead of spending it all.

A general strengthening of the power of the employer is another problem. I don’t think it would be a problem if an employer would fire his emplyee just because he does not like him. After all the employee has the same right to do so. And the job of the employer is to distribute the duties among his employees in the way he considers is the best. And personal animosities might be relevant for this decisions as well.

The problem would be to avoid misuse of power. Employees with special duties such as working in the quality assurance or elected employee representatives still might be protected by special rules to enable them to fulfil their censorious jobs in the company. But what, if the simple warehouseman is asked to work “voluntary” extra time after the end of his shift, especially in connection with the polite hint that otherwise he might not stay warehouseman too long any more?


With the considerations made above I would welcome an easing of lay-off protection by pure intellectual reasons. I think the lay-off protection all in all is an inefficient measure which hinders the economical progress in a sum of many single cases.

But changing the current laws would lead to many practical questions which could lead to destroy a deficient balance which was practiced for decades now. The social question of distributing wins would make necessary a new system of distribution. And still it is likely that the consumers be insecured to a degree that they consume so much less goods that all positive effects of the ease of lay-off protection would get used up.

So as long as there is no solution for these problems I don’t think easing the lay-off protection is a practicable measure in Germany.

Money for nothing?

6 May, 2010 (14:32) | finance | By: Aerar

(German version published on 28 February, 2010)

The social state made it its task to attend to its citizens at least with the minimum which is necessary for a humane live. And it is right doing so as by this he gains a part of its moral justification, creates trust among its people and improves its respect within the rest of the world. Above that it is vital for its existance as otherwise it would be held up by social problems or even brake on them.

Nevertheless the state and many of its citizens don’t want to give this support undeservingly, which sounds fair at a first look. And so there is a system of social welfare which claims a proof of indigence from all recipients. And so it generates a problem already with the basic concept which humiliates its customers with formalities and controls and the commitment of useless small jobs to a father degree than they already are because of their financial situation.

Another basic problem with this kind of support is that it provides only little perspectives and that it is more like administrating poverty than helping the persons concerned to escape from their situation. Because one necessarity for this support is being poor. This is a state which is easily archived but not desirable. Those who take efforts and within their possibilities get a useful but often low paid job have to learn that with any increasement of their income their social benefits are cut. In the end those have only little more in their pockets than those who really spent their days drinking beer in the parks or sitting at home in front of their TVs, as many believe is what those people do.
With so little incentive it could be understood if many take limited efforts to improve their situation. To many of the effected people could not realistically expect to earn more than live minimun with their work.

In the end the system of social welfare grants that none of the citizens is starving but those who are supported will dwell on a low social level and are reminded by many measures that they are living on the pockets of other people and therefore should not have a life which is too comfortable.
But do the welfare recipients really live on the pockets of the other people? The gross national product is counting the productivity of all citizens but the statistics of unemployment state that there is not enough work to let everyone participate in the production process. In a time where employed people prefer to work overtime rather than accept cuttings in their income it is a logical consequence that some end up standing aside. But is it fair to hinder a part of the people not only from getting a job but to be in addition so self-satisfied to allow them only a small fraction of the earned goods?

This is why the idea of an unconditional basic income has been developed. In this system the government would spread parts of the income of the state among all people in even parts as a free income which is enough to live at the social minimum. It is unconditional and will be payed to everyone. Top earners would gain the same amount as those who have nothing. Only this way it would not make social differences and would make control and bureaucracy superflous. Everyone would be free to decide what he will do based on this basic situation. As it is currently fact people still might decide to deny any further efforts and some who did not dare to claim those social supports before might now be encouraged to do so too.
But all those who have fallen into poverty without their fault, with this money they have a right to get, would gain new self-respect. All those with low wages which were hardly above the social minimum now would get a real additional benefit of their work. And those without a job would be motivated to join up as now each Euro they earned would mean a real increasement of their income. The debates about Hartz IV and minimum wages would be solved.

But how could such a giant project be financed? There are some different models already which also give estimations on the financing of an unconditional basic income. As a trade-off for the immense costs there at least will be the omission of the current social expenses including those for bureaucracy. As well there would be a direct increasement of the income taxes as the income of all people has increased by the amount of the additional income. The increased spending power also would raise the gain of the turnover tax and all in all it could be expected that productivity will be increased as well.

But there are other questions as well and need to be discussed. Employers e.g. might feel encouraged to cut working fees as their employeers gain extra money from the unconditional income, which would in parts reduce the effects of the extra income. But at least in the low jobs sector this might lead to a much better situation for German workers as they would be capable of competing with foreign workers even for lower fees.

So there are many questions and an interesting uniting idea which might have the capability to reduce social tensions to a far degree. This idea is worth beeing discussed unbiasedly without socialistic romantics or bourgeois reluctance of “donating money for doing nothing”.
The unconditional basic income only would be a useful measure if it could manage to increase the social coherence and would improve the economic power of the country.

A proper calculation surely would be a good project of its own. The following rough calculation at least could show the dimension of the expected costs:

Live minimum (grown up): 750 Euro / month
Live minimum (child): 300 Euro / month
Number of grown ups: 60 Mio.
Number of children: 20 Mio.

Fees to be payed (per year): 750 Euro / month * 12 months * 60 Mio + 300 Euro / month * 12 months * 20 Mio. = 612 Bil. Euro

As a trade-off of these costs there are direct savings. First about all current social welfare measures could be dropped. All people who already had income above the live minimum would need to pay income tax for their unconditional extra income. Estimating 10 % of the people getting social welfare today and an average tax rate of 35% would result in these savings:

social welfare today: 10% * 100% = 10 %
no social welfare today: 90% * 35% = 31,5 %

So 41,5% of the money payed would directly be saved at another place or lead to extra tax income. So the rest amount that needs to be financed is roughly about 350 Bil Euro a year. A very large amount still considering that the federal government budget stated expenses of just 283 Bil. Euro in 2008. But this calculation does not account saving by the reduction of bureaucracy and the benefits of the stimulation of the economy. Above that it could be thought of (and maybe it is even necessary to) fit the tax rates to the basically changed income structure that in the end a balanced federal budget is archieved.

Dark clouds above Mount Olympus

5 May, 2010 (13:51) | abroad, economy | By: Aerar

(German version published on 26 February, 2010)

Some people in Greece currently are very angry with Germany. The ostensible cause is a a picture on the title of the Munic news magazine “Focus”, which shows the Venus von Milo with an erected middle finger beside the text “deceiver in the Euro-Family” (German)

The reactions on this show how tense the nerves are and to what degree the national pride is attacked already: they compare Germans with monkeys on trees and don’t hesitate to swing the big Nazi bat. As a topping there is a call for boycot on German goods. This even to the ears of German export companies sounds as threatening as a country wide philosophers strike, which at least would fit thematically.
Beside the fact that those multifold medial retaliations, even if they are counted as (excessive) self-defence more than compensate the Focus title it does not seem too clever to me to bring the economy of a country down to the border of a collapse and then insult possible rescuers.

Not alone because of manipulated financial reports to the EU the factual trueness of the accusation of defraud is hardly to deny when “Greece top politicians get private lessons in financial matters from Josef Ackermann” . And who will pay the bill at the end if again a German bank gets into trouble?

All this is making me unbelievable angry and extremly hurt and I urge to do something stupid to give my frustration a ventile. I therefore demand to remove the attribute “deutsch” from the name of the “Deutsche Bank” for reasons of national pride as at least I don’t want to get involvement semantically in the deeds of this institue.
Greece of course need to be boycotted. As this would hardly have any economic effect in addition I demand to boycott Udo Jürgens as well. What a madhouse. So this is the unity and actionability of the EU in practice. Not surprising if the international reputation of the EU is falling to meaninglessness. Maybe Europe could reclaim the focus of the USA if it sold the rights of this soap opera to Hollywood. And maybe the money earned this way could be used to fix the one or the other hole in the finances.