I'm already worried about what lies ahead. Trump is threatening a 10% tariff on imported goods – and 60% on Chinese imported goods. This will, of course, exacerbate the situation for the shaky global economy as a whole and the weak German economy, especially as Trump has Germany particularly in his sights. He has previously labelled German premium cars as superfluous on American roads. His thinking is so simple and one-dimensional. Now, there is also a German government that is unable to act until new elections are held.

That's right, the US economy will also suffer. But this also applies to other points that Trump has on his agenda. Take the remigration of illegal immigrants. This already happened under George Bush Junior, and cost Americans jobs. All of Trump's plans in this direction will not be good for the American economy. He is harming himself.

Hardly, especially as he now has advisors around him who believe what he is saying. And he also raised these issues during the election campaign. Now he has to deliver what he promised. That's what he wants to be judged on.

Yes, a far-right grouping is coming to power with a partlially even anti-capitalist program – with the exception of their own supporters, I'm thinking of Elon Musk, of course.

First of all, it sends a terrible signal to Trump: The democratic forces can't get it right; the West is paralysed. This is grist to the mill of populists like Trump. And if the result of the next election in Germany looks like the recent one in the east of the Republic, it will amount to the parties blocking each other. For Trump, this is a signal for even more autocracy. That really welds people like him, Putin and Xi together.

The danger certainly exists, and that is why Europe – especially Germany – must send a strong security policy signal in response. The Bundeswehr special fund is already underfunded at 100 billion euros. 300 billion euros are actually needed. However, this requires another constitutional amendment; and this must be pushed through quickly with the current opposition in the coming weeks. Because after the next general election, there may be a blocking minority of AfD, BSW and the Left in favour of constitutional amendments. Putin must not see this as an opportunity to attack Ukraine even more. Of course, Germany cannot do this alone – a strong European signal is also needed. But who should send it?

In the current situation, a suspension of the debt brake would be justifiable in my opinion, due to the objectively existing emergency situation. And the CDU/CSU opposition cannot really refuse to increase the special budget for the Bundeswehr. It is not a winning issue with a population of which only 60% are of the opinion that there is a need for action here. The other part is pacifist or illusionary. So why not let this be decided jointly in this Bundestag?

In parts, yes. Others have recently been calmed by the left-wing majority in the Ampel coalition with social benefits. Chancellor Scholz's statement after the traffic light coalition's exit, according to which internal social security should not be played off against external security, goes in this direction. In principle, however, both must, of course, be justified on their own merits.

No, not at all. Social reforms are necessary because the incentive structure is simply not right, the benefits are not well targeted, and the structures are too complex. But to expect at least 40 billion euros for defence, as Lindner probably had in mind and some economists are also calling for, is certainly not realistic.

There is a third way that is more promising in the long term. I was in Stanford last week and visited companies. There was an employee in a data science group who reported on a visit to Germany. He said that the people here were all satisfied, but that they no longer showed any ambition to do better. That's exactly what we lack: A hunger for more, for something different. We have been lulled to sleep for over 16 years because Chancellor Angela Merkel soothed us and promised to take care of everything.

You can certainly accuse the traffic light coalition government of many things. Lack of consistency, poor management, lousy communication. But it has also had to tackle many things that have been left undone for too long, such as the transformation and energy transition, digitalisation and innovation, and investment backlog; the modernisation of the country has simply failed to materialise. As a result of the Trump election, we can no longer avoid this, but must act tomorrow.

Frankly, I am not yet sure whether all political players realise the magnitude of their task. It seems to me that people are still backward looking in their thinking. After all, some work has already been started on the transformation. Take research spending, for example: In recent decades, this has increased from 2.5% to 3.1% of gross domestic product. There is also a larger share of investment in the federal budget. A commendable achievement. And the climate turnaround is already underway, but it needs to be better, and more coordinated. First of all, however, we need an urgent programme: Measures such as the super depreciation an adjustment of the tax framework. Energy prices need to be tackled: Grid charges, a bridge electricity price, and reorganisation of the EEG (Renewable Energy Sources Act).

Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. The decline in quality has not yet been halted. We need a large, reliable investment fund of around 600 billion euros, as determined by the IW (German Economic Institute) together with the IMK (Macroeconomic Policy Institute). And we need a whole series of acceleration laws and a reduction in bureaucracy to get these things on the road.

Of course, all of this can only take place outside the debt brake, until modernisation has been completed and new growth forces have been unleashed. The debt brake still applies to the current budget. As I said, it is about making up for the omissions of the past 20 years. The fact that the CDU/CSU and SPD missed out on a lot back then is still being addressed far too little. Of course, the debt brake itself also needs to be reformed – as do the European debt rules, because these also put the brakes on our spending. Especially as Germany, in contrast to many other countries with a debt ratio of around 63% of GDP, still has plenty of room for such investments, and is in a much better fiscal position overall.

What good is fiscal freedom of movement for the welfare state if the location is no longer worth a straw? If I can generate more growth and higher tax revenues through modernisation, I am also helping to shoulder the demographic burdens of an ageing society later on. An attractive location is also a magnet for more immigration. People have to want to come, stay and work here. And this brings us back to the topic of security from the beginning of our discussion: A location is only attractive if it is not only socially secure, but can also guarantee freedom. Hence the rearmament of the Bundeswehr.

We have a large domestic market and this is also attractive for American companies. We can use this as a bargaining chip against Trump. And if we worked together more in Europe, we could also save a lot of money, for example in equipping our armies. Far too little is still happening here. The same applies to the expansion of the internal market for capital, and digital goods. Here, too, far too little is happening that would bring about more growth.

My impression is that behind the scenes, the CDU/CSU is also well aware that it has to open up a huge can of worms here and think about clever openings – such as a national infrastructure fund – with a view to the debt brake.

The CDU/CSU should lift some of its ideological blockades and start telling a grand narrative, a narrative of how it wants to modernise Germany. But under no circumstances should it give the impression that it wants to go back to the past. After all, things were no better back then, as is often suggested – including by Trump.

In this respect, the USA is gambling away its future. In Germany, we have to manage to convince people to restructure the economy. This is only possible with the unvarnished truth, which also names impositions. Ultimately, we need to paint a picture of a modern, sustainable Germany that fits into the new world and will be successful. Above all, a new enthusiasm for investment must be awakened because it provides certainty for the future.

Such an attitude is also counterproductive for its own forthcoming work in a new federal government. It will have to deal with climate policy whether it wants to or not, even if it puts off phasing out the combustion engine for a while yet. After all, the issue has not been cleared up by the „traffic light“ exit. The Union must also react to the automatic increase in CO2 prices, because the cost burden will increase everywhere if the switch to sustainable energies is not made quickly. And it must – especially when EU certificate trading for buildings and transport (ETS 2) comes in 2027 – also make the promised climate money available to citizens. The previous Finance Minister, Mr Lindner, simply withheld the money, contrary to his promises. This has not necessarily contributed to the acceptance of climate policy.

We are shaping an industry that will deliver the upcoming transformation, pulling the entire economy and society along with it towards a more modern Germany, which can then build on lower energy costs and generate more prosperity despite ageing.

Because the German economy has always achieved this kind of transformation and adapted to it. However, it needs the necessary framework conditions to be able to act and react freely and efficiently. And the federal government is responsible for this.

Of course not. The state also needs to provide support by investing in the relevant technology. The hydrogen economy will not come about on its own just through the CO2 price. It needs lead markets and infrastructure. It also needs electricity storage and grid expansion. This has not been pushed forward energetically enough in recent years. Instead, people have been photographed in front of wind turbines and photovoltaic landscapes.

Absolutely. There was a lack of a master plan because the changeover is aimed at a specific date – climate neutrality in 2045. Too little emphasis was placed on coordinating the individual building blocks of the transformation, and making the consistency of the plan known to the public. It was never made clear how this all fits together. And many people don't realise that after 200 years of industrialisation based on fossil fuels, it's about building a completely new structure that supports an industrial state. This is something very fundamental. But it also has something positive because we are moving towards a healthier world.

I'm optimistic about that. In my experience, you have to show people the whole plan, with all the demands, but also all the opportunities. You should not feel that any costs are being hidden, or that there are unnamed beneficiaries of the development. Because deep down they know that things cannot continue as before. As a result, some of the Ampel coalition government's decisions were counterproductive: The heating law, for example, or high subsidies for charging stations specifically for homeowners, while other population groups were forgotten.

I would do it like Churchill in 1940 with a blood, sweat and tears speech. The situation is not directly comparable, but the German economy is in deep trouble with regard to Trump, Russia, the West, globalisation and its failures. Munchausen, i.e. the promises of the populists, won't get you very far. It does require a fair amount of effort. In any case, we need a government that takes action, that doesn't have ideological blinders on, and a chancellor who recognises reality and knows why people have so far reacted with scepticism.