Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

You only need signs at the borders for the guests and must remove all signs that say more than 130

I have never seen such signs with more than 130 in my 29 years of driving license and around 600,000 km of driving experience. Besides, when it comes to speed limits, 130 km/h is always implicitly assumed. But why not 140, 150, 100 or even 120?! In my opinion, 130 is quite arbitrary.

130 is already the advisory speed and also the limit in various neighboring countries. In others it is 120, so it makes sense to choose one of the two options instead of settling on 123.45 by committee.

No, it was not politically intended. It simply became unprofitable to store about 3 wagons somewhere and pick them up at some point. On top of that, the logistics: here for Frankfurt, here for Hamburg, and over there for the plant in Klecksdorf. Klecksdorf is loaded, damn, it’s at the very back, the others have to go first. Then the small branch lines on private land were shut down, everything was transported by truck to the next major station and loaded. Unprofitable, by the time the stuff is transferred, you might as well drive straight to the destination and hooray, just-in-time for small quantities is possible. That was a process long before privatization.

Might be, but I still have a different opinion. Because political influence on the railway didn’t start only with privatization. MEA owns the railway, like other things (water, electricity, telephone) should be publicly owned. The fact that these things are more efficient economically overall, even though they appear (without an overall economic perspective) to be unprofitable, could be an argument? But as long as I (and others who babble about political things here) don’t get politically involved, it all remains just pub talk ;)

(do I always have to write that when I mean something ironically or does the discerning reader figure that out themselves?)

Not really. But I took the quote from the newspaper seriously and not as a Postillion contribution.

Actually not. But I took the quote from the newspaper seriously and not as a Postillion article.

The quote is of course real. But my own contribution to it is naturally meant ironically. Otherwise, you would have to start crying with so much real-life satire.

But it can also be designed better if desired, with smaller houses and real living spaces.

If someone pays for it and the tenants have sufficient social skills. :) I am quite curious to see how our government will shape the 400,000 apartments per year. I have no doubt that enormously beautiful solutions, which could also be an alternative for me, are possible.

Why don’t you make your house available to a family with children, regardless of rent or purchase?

Maybe a certain lack of altruism, although as an individual I would certainly much prefer to live in a city rental apartment. However, my husband lived in his own house for 20 years and did not want to be a tenant again. Unlike me, he had very bad experiences as a tenant.

The "oh, the municipality has a new building area, let’s just apply spontaneously" is over. More supply for those who have consistently saved for years with the goal of building/buying a house and do not start with 30k "equity".

As already mentioned, I believe this hits exactly the wrong target group.

In my opinion, it will be interesting to see to whom Habeck legally cuts off the gas... I think brick/porous concrete manufacturers will be quite high on the list...

Yes, that will be interesting. Whether a political majority can be found for this in the Bundestag and I am curious about the corresponding discussions, also here in the forum.

Not only them, cement also requires incredible amounts of energy.

The chemical industry accounts for about 29% of gas demand and I hope they can adjust. Because besides the production of specialty chemicals and polymers, pharmaceuticals are also involved. Whether we can easily source all that from abroad, I do not know.

If you don't notice all that you can, of course, put yourself out there and say everything is great with us.

And bask in the cozy feeling that we are a rich country. ;-)

120 speed limit everywhere and done. That’s how it is in all other countries too. When I’m on the highway there’s already a speed limit for all others. I make sure of that. :)

I am of the opinion that we could leave the highways to the people who want to drive fast and the other drivers simply take the country and federal roads, where their desired speed applies.

The funny thing was also that an employed teacher was rejected as a civil servant because she was too fat... Germany struggles for equal treatment and equality for everyone, but she was too fat for a civil servant teacher. As an employed teacher she was good enough... You don’t have to understand that...

I know a similar example from my closer environment involving a computer science professorship. The reason seems to be that civil servants are examined more thoroughly regarding health before hiring or before becoming a civil servant, since the care and pension claims of civil servants in the event of reduced earning capacity or disability seem to be quite comfortable, even if the job was only held for a relatively short time. Obesity, with the usual accompanying illnesses, is apparently seen as a higher risk. This is not a judgment on my part, just a possible explanation for the "strictness." I know from civil servant households that therapies for their children were not handled through aid because of this reason, but paid "truly" privately, so that possible health "peculiarities" (including psychological ones) do not become part of the official record. Likewise, despite health restrictions, rather poor grades in "sports" were accepted than allowing the child to be excused from physical education for medical reasons.