How can I get a clothes buyer

Two years ago, a tweet made headlines in which a student from Cologne complained: “I'm 18 and I have no idea about taxes, rent or insurance. But I can write a poem analysis - in four languages. " The latter will certainly please the current NRW School Minister Sylvia Löhrmann. And the former has not yet been the top priority of the Green Minister of Education. The abolition of the subject of economics by the current state government of North Rhine-Westphalia, which the previous government had previously introduced, is already showing its effect.

A study by the Association of Young Entrepreneurs and Family Entrepreneurs has now systematically examined the development based on the quality of school books. The verdict is terrifying. When it comes to economic relationships in German textbooks, it usually revolves around questions of distributive justice, the dangers and disadvantages of globalization, and a negative image of entrepreneurship is conveyed. The positive image of the market economy, which is the basis for our prosperity, only plays a subordinate role.

And even where economic relationships are dealt with, the textbooks examined are shaped by the prevailing neoclassical equilibrium theory and a Keynesian economic policy. The role of the entrepreneur in the market economy, as Schumpeter once described him, plays no or only a very subordinate role. It is he who invests through his willingness to take risks and thereby transforms ideas into products. It is indispensable in a market economy. An educational policy that ignores this or even conveys the opposite will only promote potential civil servants. How should a start-up culture develop in Germany in such a school environment? Instead, a textbook reads "Economics": "Anyone who only hires and fires as an employer, does not train employees or even bullies them, is therefore in no way acting in the interests of economists."

The necessity and the blessing of the division of labor in the market economy is usually not emphasized positively, but rather wild distorted images are drawn.

In particular, the international division of labor, which is existential for many German companies, is presented as a danger and not an opportunity. In "Terra Geography 3" it says: "But the majority of the population has no advantage from world trade." So you don't have to be surprised when thousands of critics of globalization from the “right” and “left” take to the streets. How should they know if it's not even in the school books and many teachers march in the front line on the demos? In the textbook "Understanding Politics and Acting" it says about a market economy: "However, their frequent crises, which threaten the economic existence of large groups of people, and the global destruction of the environment make many people doubt this model." One might think of the destruction of the environment in socialist planned economies of the last century. The power plants in the GDR in particular were the epitome of progress and environmental protection, weren't they?

As a consequence of this situation, the authors of the study call for a separate school subject or at least an anchor subject for economics in schools.

That would certainly not change the situation overnight, but it would initiate a change in teacher training. Because without a separate subject or an anchor subject, there would be no systematic economic education and training for teachers. Without a corresponding anchor subject, economics education will therefore always remain a niche topic in school. Sometimes it's political classes, sometimes geography classes and sometimes history classes, in which aspects of economics play a role, but student teachers only get the edge of economic connections. Perhaps it would be a good start if Ludwig Erhard's “Prosperity for All” were made compulsory reading. In it he describes the image of a market economy that is social in its effect. That would be something if this were taught in our schools.