The origin of the AfD is that a stable euro was promised but not delivered.
Better and more honest politics would prevent the AfD.
But the main problem is that the media provided the attention. The conflict is wanted by the upper class. To resolve the AfD within the system, alternative media has to be established.
Could you please elaborate how the euro is not stable? I don’t really get that point honestly, although I know the origins of the AFD are mostly about being against the euro
I haven’t found a good article that explains the early AfD position so I try to explain what I can remember.
The core should be that one currency for an inhomogenuous political entity is not a good idea. Usually, countries with weak industries can devalue their currency to offer their goods at competitive prices on the global market. This effectively means taking value from whomever owns money or receives wages that don’t adjust immediately.
If there is only one currency, and if that currency should remain stable, somebody else has to pay to adjust the prices. This can be seen in Germany after the unification when there were additional taxes in the west to finance the east.
Now the promise to the Germans was that the euro would be stable but also that they wouldn’t have to pay for it.
Economically, this doesn’t make sense, as scientists had pointed out, but they were ignored. (Thus the original AfD, to have an alternative to the established parties.)
The origin of the AfD is that a stable euro was promised but not delivered.
Better and more honest politics would prevent the AfD.
But the main problem is that the media provided the attention. The conflict is wanted by the upper class. To resolve the AfD within the system, alternative media has to be established.
Could you please elaborate how the euro is not stable? I don’t really get that point honestly, although I know the origins of the AFD are mostly about being against the euro
I haven’t found a good article that explains the early AfD position so I try to explain what I can remember.
The core should be that one currency for an inhomogenuous political entity is not a good idea. Usually, countries with weak industries can devalue their currency to offer their goods at competitive prices on the global market. This effectively means taking value from whomever owns money or receives wages that don’t adjust immediately.
If there is only one currency, and if that currency should remain stable, somebody else has to pay to adjust the prices. This can be seen in Germany after the unification when there were additional taxes in the west to finance the east.
Now the promise to the Germans was that the euro would be stable but also that they wouldn’t have to pay for it.
Economically, this doesn’t make sense, as scientists had pointed out, but they were ignored. (Thus the original AfD, to have an alternative to the established parties.)
Now the euro is quite stable. So who paid?