Election campaign: The shopping cart problem could decide the choice

140. 140 euros, this is this magical number that has been on the checkout of the cash register for a few months when all my purchases have run over the tape at Kaufland. I always twitch my shoulders, say “Oh, that was worth it again today”. The cashier smiles a little pitying, sometimes there is a portion of Berlin snouts. Then I put my EC card on the reader and pack my Hacken-Porsche.

It works at least twice a week, and this does not include the costs for fruit, vegetables and other small purchases in the shop around the corner. Okay: We have four children. Part of the increase in costs goes back to the fact that the little ones are now eating more.

But a few years ago, this purchase did not cost 100 euros, 40 euros less. And combined with the increasing energy prices and the contributions to health insurance, I am slowly getting a little queasy. I earn okay with my wife, but given the family size I would classify us somewhere below the middle. After all, I only pay a small monthly installment for my apartment – if I had to rent an apartment for this whole horde here in Berlin, I would be bankrupt. And I’m not alone with this queasy feeling.

In the months before the presidential election in the United States, I read an obvious text in the “New York Times” (NYT), which pointed out to a bad perception of the political establishment: macroeconomically speaking, the author wrote the economy. In 2023 it was 2.5 percent, probably more last year. The team of Joe Biden meanwhile wondered why Donald Trump was well received by his message from the alleged decline of America in the electorate.

The key, the NYT author wrote, was located in contrast to the macro and micro level. In short: While bidges told about the growth of the economy, many people experienced something like me every day at the cash register of Walmart or McDonald’s day after day.

Fortunately, we do not live in any planned economy in which the Politburo can decrease butter prices. And yes, I understand that part of the additional costs we now have to pay is the price of freedom: If we would accuse Ukraine of Ukraine, we could get cheap Russian gas again the next day. Then the prices would fall and, perhaps, the competitiveness of our industry would increase again.

I am also ready to pay this price because, as a Ukraine reporter, I know from my own view what much my Ukrainian friends pay for it every day. And Brecht’s “First comes the eating – and then morality” does not apply to Germany – the support for Ukraine and the Ukrainians are still great at all levels.

But – you have to be so honest – the fate of Ukraine is not at the top of the list of priorities for every German. This applies even more to the many people who are even more scarce than with me.

It is probably not so wrong when Oiaf Scholz, the Chancellor, steps on the brake for a new 3 billion package for Ukraine. Three years after the start of the war, people in Germany want to know exactly what and with what meaning the money is spent. Three billion may easily get over their lips in Berlin’s political bubble. But that’s 3,000,000,000 euros. And the state can spend it either way.

The upcoming federal government should therefore put the costs of the shopping cart for the Otto normal consumer at the top of everything it does, at least not to let the Otto normal consumer rise further at this pace. Populists from all directions skillfully use the subjective feeling of people when they say in the election campaign: “They no longer know what it is up to be at the cash register, and the money is no longer enough for purchasing.”

It is to be hoped that this country will come back from stagnation in the next four years. But-the example of bidding has shown-pure macro numbers are not enough. If you want to put the populists in the barriers, you have to ensure that the number 180 will not be released on the cash display of my supermarket in four years.