There is an ongoing debate whether our woman chancelor, Angela Merkel, should better have not received the Tibetian intellectual and spiritual leader who is a thorn in China’s flesh. The Chinese show themselves more than exasperated by that asserted betrayal of confidence.

In my humble opinion, there are two remarkable aspects of the publix debate:

1. China is lightyears away from freedom and democracy.
2. The fear that Germany could lose a lot of money because purchase orders break away reveals an dependence from external resources in a broader sense. Wouldn’t a Germany that is strong because of its own be much stronger than one whose strength is built on external resources? Mere orientation on money rewards may lead to minor quality and possibly not to sustainable creation of value – we’ve seen that with dotProject.

Hopefully, ethical principles will soon find their way back into consideration concerning economic decisisions.

Another thing I do not understand:

It really makes sense to have locally constrained governments and governmental institutions in a very global world. Some examples and scenarios:

• An usual event – breaking news: Flood in some poor country. If it keeps raining, thousands of people are concerned. Day 1 after: First numbers are published. Day 2: Numbers are corrected upwards. Evening of Day 2: Serious health threats possible. Day 3: The concerned country’s government can cope with the threat. Day 4: The obviuous becomes evident – the local government is overchallenged. Day 5: A task force is built. You know the rest. Where’s the permanent global task force with strongly powered representatives from every country?
• It is further reasonable to fight the economically harmful global SPAM problem with local institutions equipped with weak powers.