Why don't construction prices go down?

When you invest in the future, debt is good.
Germany and other countries in Europe have, however, taken on debt and not invested the money in the future... otherwise, we wouldn't have the current problems...

Nice closing remark. Back to construction costs.

Currently: Possible ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia demanded by Trump. Should this happen or even lead to peace, it could also affect our construction costs.
Many large construction companies are already showing concern about this scenario. Why? Because Ukraine has an enormous need for reconstruction. There is fear that many of the crews currently working in Germany will then be tied up in Ukraine for years. German craftsmen are in short supply, so there are worries about rising personnel costs (not to mention material).

This is a small input from discussions about construction costs and availability against the background of the Ukraine war.

P.S. By columns I mean all the Polish, Romanian, Albanian, etc. columns - without them, it hasn't been possible in Germany for a long time.

Alright, but then it starts all over again. Suddenly, the pension increase is seen as an investment or early retirement for everyone, and the money is blown out the window on trinkets.

But it doesn't fit the question of debt,

Which also remains unanswered by you: If the foreign countries (namely the USA and China as main players) no longer want to carry the deficits worldwide through debt, how exactly is the German surplus model supposed to work if taking on debt yourself is also not desired?

From a current article...
"Greece remains on a steady growth path. While in some EU countries the economy has stagnated or even shrunk for the second year already, the Greek gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 2.3 percent in the second quarter. It thus grew almost four times as fast as the economic output of the EU countries on average, which rose by 0.6 percent. For the entire year 2024, the Greek government expects growth of 2.2 percent. In contrast, the EU Commission assumes only 0.8 percent on average for the 27 member states this year.

Oh please, you are usually the one with the charts (meant positively, seriously). If you had subjected the excerpt from the article you quoted to the same scrutiny… sorry, here I see confirmation bias at work, my personal opinion.

A simple look at Statista:
- The GDP of Grundriss is somewhat below that of 2004 – without a crisis that would mean 20 years(!) of zero growth
- The unemployment rate is an astonishing 11.1% and is thus even above that of 2004 – after it had temporarily climbed to over 25% due to the restructuring measures

They have simply produced the now seemingly positive numbers: Destroy so much that the rebuilding afterwards fully generates growth. Applause, that always works everywhere.

Then the pension increase is suddenly seen as an investment or earlier retirement

A pension increase and earlier retirement are two completely different things from an economic perspective. The former generates revenue for companies because retirees usually have a low savings rate and thus growth impulses. Early retirement, on the other hand, can be harakiri because it reduces the real resource labor.

So it is not that simple with "into the future" vs. consumption after all. Someone has to also utilize investments and needs money for that again. And has already pointed out that investments in intangibles such as education are strictly speaking also consumption expenditures, since salaries for educators and teachers are included there as well.

Related and yet back on topic: Regarding the construction cost increase since 2015, how much of that is due to wage increases, how much to material costs, and how much profit increase have the companies pocketed? Has anyone done this breakdown? (I am too lazy on a Sunday to look it up myself).

Which you also left unanswered: If foreign countries (namely the USA and China as main players) no longer want to drive deficits via debt in this world, how exactly is the German surplus model supposed to work, if own indebtedness is also not desired?

Willingness is the keyword. If the USA no longer want to, they have to focus on more economic development instead of tariffs (which will lead to massive inflation, since American products simply are not competitive). I do not see that willingness in reality anytime soon.
Surpluses on one side mean on the other side that other countries simply are not capable of producing themselves. I do not see any change.

Oh please, otherwise you are always the one with the diagrams (seriously, in a positive way). If you had subjected the passage you quoted from an article to the same scrutiny… well sorry, here I see confirmation bias at work, my personal opinion.

A simple look at Statista:
- The GDP of Grundriss is somewhat below that of 2004 – without a crisis that would mean 20 years(!) of zero growth
- The unemployment rate is an astonishing 11.1% and thus even above that of 2004 – after it had temporarily climbed over 25% due to the restructuring measures

That’s why I wrote explicitly:

Yes, the debt crisis really hurt Greece.

And that’s how it is. You have to restructure first. And that costs. Money, jobs, prosperity (which in Greece wasn’t really there anyway, because nothing worked – despite debts and spending a lot of money).
And then it goes upwards again.
I could also call up statistics like these, showing that the unemployment rate is actually not that high. It was just previously reported incorrectly, because the employment rate shows a positive picture:



That sounds as if you would recommend a private person to just keep taking on more and more debt to live and waste money. If you then cannot pay interest on the loans, you simply take new ones. If you get no more and have to declare bankruptcy (= everything goes downhill and you have to start over) that would be bad, because you are no longer at the high level from before the bankruptcy.
Nothing else was Greece. A country that overindebted itself, threw money away for nothing useful. Everyone in Greece is to blame for that.
Apart from that – you can also see this in statistics – Greece had already been in a recession since 2008. So the debt cut and the new budgeting are not the drivers behind the downturn (before the restart), but a longer existing desolate economy, shadow economy, undeclared work, and an incompetent economic policy/government.



Clearly visible how Greece has been managing things very badly since the early 2000s. The recession from 2008 is also clearly visible. And also after a consolidation phase, since 2020 it has been able to reap the fruits of good policy.

and the interest is then gone because they cash it out as cash and then burn it?

Nope, someone else just has it. But no longer the state, which could use it to finance schools, highways, etc. It ends up as dividends to investors. However, these neither contribute to consumption nor to infrastructure measures or the like.