To label Germany as the "sick man of Europe" is considered a media exaggeration by many economists, government officials, and even the President of the Bundesbank. To continue with the appeaser's analogy: a high-performance athlete who has trained less rigorously and put on some weight over time should not be considered sick just because his performance has temporarily slipped from the top tier to average or even below. That is one way to look at it. However, this raises the question of whether the former elite athlete even wants to regain his former level of performance and whether the environment allows for it.

The growth and prosperity of an economy are primarily determined by the development of labor productivity. It is subject to cyclical and structural influences. The present economic weakness, according to the appeasers, is primarily cyclical and therefore temporary. Some expect GDP growth to return as early as 2024. We have seen how long "temporary" can last when it comes to inflation. Nevertheless, in its latest monthly report, the Bundesbank acknowledged the existence of "broad-based pressure for action." This concerns the structural framework conditions, such as the innovative strength of companies, the allocative efficiency of the market, demographic development, digitalisation and also bureaucracy and regulation.

The fact is that labor productivity, expressed as value added per employee, has been declining in Germany for years. No OECD country has shorter working hours than Germany. Changing this, for example, through longer weekly working hours or longer working lives, is politically a taboo subject. Declining employee motivation is a growing complaint not only at business conferences. The debate about a four-day workweek with full wage compensation reflects the zeitgeist.

Germany owes its prosperity to its industrial strength, particularly in the automotive, chemicals/pharmaceuticals, and mechanical engineering sectors. Openness to technology and competitive energy prices were the foundations of this success. Both are now in jeopardy because the state, in its desire for socially desirable and economically sensible decarbonization, presumes knowledge and intervenes discreetly in the market. As a result, as industry increasingly conducts renewal and expansion investments abroad, the domestic industrial base is eroding. Germany is shifting from being the pace-setter in the technological development of important industries to being a follower. The fact that there are 173 professorships for gender studies in Germany but only eight chairs for nuclear research, as Gitta Connemann, the federal chairwoman of the Mittelstands- und Wirtschaftsunion, recently pointed out, speaks for itself.

At least some politicians seem to have realized that the "business model Germany" and the business location are in danger. The Hessian Future Council for the Economy, chaired by Entega CEO Marie-Luise Wolff and former economic adviser Volker Wieland, presented its first interim report with 200 practical recommendations for politics at the end of August. These "action recommendations" for the newly elected state government in October are intended to set the course for a "modern Hesse of tomorrow." How about a Future Business Council for Germany? Improving the framework conditions in Germany is urgently needed, just as it was 20 years ago. It does not have to be called Agenda 2030 if the Chancellor and his party still have unpleasant memories of Agenda 2010.