Summary

^{Translation started with translate.google.de without further verification.}

Summary: Who Benefits Most?

• Winners in all scenarios:
  ✅ Large companies, managers & corporations – They benefit from government contracts, increasing demand, and infrastructure improvements.
  ✅ Workers and small business owners benefit in the short term when new jobs are created through government spending.
• Long-term losers:
  ❌ Children & future generations – Debt must be financed at some point, either through higher taxes or cuts.
  ❌ Retirees & Civil servants – If savings become necessary, their incomes or pensions could come under pressure.
  ❌ Small business owners & workers – If debt is covered by taxes on income or consumption (rather than wealth), they could be burdened more heavily than large corporations.
• Controversial groups:
  ♦️ Workers & small business owners benefit in the short term from higher demand, but could lose in the long term if inflation rises or taxes hit them harder than corporations.

Conclusion: Government debt is a redistribution mechanism

• Neoliberal economists see debt as a threat to future taxpayers and fear it will be a burden on workers and businesses.
• Keynesians believe that debt generates short-term growth as long as investments are used productively.
• MMT proponents see no obligation to repay debt as long as inflation remains under control.
• Marxist thinkers argue that debt often benefits the wealthy and increases social inequality.

^{End of translation with translate.google.de without further cross-checking}

Dialogue with ChatGPT on the topic of national debt - (ChatGPT can make errors. NO cross-checking is done.)

^{Translation started with translate.google.de without further cross-checking.}

You said:

I'm thinking philosophically about the development of a state. In today's discussion, I'd like to address the topic of national debt. I once heard that national debt is never repaid. What are the consequences of increasing national debt? Can you please present various well-known viewpoints on this?

ChatGPT said:

The topic of national debt is a central problem in fiscal and economic policy and is assessed differently by different schools of thought. Here are some of the most important viewpoints:

---

1. Classical Liberal Perspective (Ordoliberalism, Monetarism)

• Main message: Rising government debt is problematic in the long term because it burdens future generations, promotes inflation, and restricts economic freedom.
• Arguments:
  • High levels of debt mean rising interest payments, which place a long-term burden on the government budget.
  • To repay debt, tax increases or savings are often necessary, which can slow economic growth.
  • High levels of government debt can lead to a loss of investor confidence, thereby increasing refinancing costs.
• Consequences:
  • Risk of inflation or even a debt crisis (e.g., the Greek crisis).
  • Loss of sovereignty due to dependence on creditors (e.g., International Monetary Fund loans).

Representatives: Milton Friedman (Monetarism), Friedrich August von Hayek (Austrian School), Ludwig Erhard (Ordoliberalism).

---

2. Keynesianism (after John Maynard Keynes)

• Main statement: Government debt is necessary and useful to cushion economic downturns and enable investment.
• Arguments:
  • In times of crisis, the government can take on debt to stimulate demand and investment.
  • As long as economic growth exceeds the interest rate, the debt burden remains manageable.
  • Deficit financing can lead to greater prosperity in the long term if it flows into productive areas (infrastructure, education).
• Consequences:
  • Debt is unproblematic as long as the government generates sufficient economic growth.
  • It only becomes problematic when the debt ratio rises too sharply or the money flows into unproductive areas.

Representatives: John Maynard Keynes, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz.

---

3. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

• Main statement: A government that controls its own currency can borrow without limit as long as inflation remains under control.
• Arguments:
  • A government that incurs debt in its own currency can finance it by creating money.
  • The main problem is not debt, but inflation – as long as demand doesn't overheat, the government can print money without any problems.
  • Instead of debt reduction, the focus should be on full employment and the real economy.
• Consequences:
  • Potential risk of hyperinflation if the money supply is expanded too much.
  • Government debt becomes less important as long as there are enough resources (labor, capital) for productive use.

Representatives: Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler.

---

4. Historical Perspective: "Debts are never repaid"

• Main message: National debt continues to grow in the long term, but this is not a problem because debts are regularly replaced by new debts.
• Arguments:
  • Countries usually do not repay their debts, but rather refinance them with new bonds.
  • Inflation and economic growth ensure that the real debt burden decreases over time.
  • Examples show that countries can survive with high levels of debt for centuries (e.g., Great Britain after the Napoleonic Wars).
• Consequences:
  • Government debt does not necessarily have to be reduced as long as it remains sustainable.
  • The crucial question is not the level of debt, but whether the government retains the confidence of the financial markets.

Representative: This view is more of a pragmatic observation of historical developments.

---

Summary:

The assessment of government debt depends heavily on the respective economic policy school:

1. Liberal economists see high government debt as a risk for inflation, tax increases, and economic instability.
2. Keynesians consider it an important tool for combating economic crises.
3. Modern Monetary Theory argues that debt is not a problem as long as inflation remains manageable.
4. Historical perspectives show that governments rarely reduce their debts, but rather continuously refinance themselves.

How do you see this? Do you lean toward one of the above views? ????

You said:

Is there a school of thought that views interest payments on perpetual debt as unfair social welfare for the rich? What implications has this school of thought had for policy, considering the resilience of institutions?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, there is a school of thought that views government debt, and especially interest payments, as a form of unjust redistribution in favor of the rich. This view stems primarily from left-wing, Marxist, and post-Keynesian circles, which argue that interest on government debt primarily benefits wealthy creditors, while the general population bears the burden.

1. Criticism of government debt as "welfare for the rich"

• Basic idea:
  When the government takes on debt, it borrows money from investors, banks, and other wealthy actors who buy government bonds. The government then pays interest—financed by taxes borne by the public.
• Main criticisms:
  • The rich benefit while the general public pays: Those with enough money to invest in government bonds receive a secure return. However, these interest payments come from taxes levied on all citizens – including poorer people who lack access to these financial instruments.
  • Government debt as redistribution from the bottom up: While progressive taxes are often attacked, it is accepted that governments pay billions in interest to wealthy creditors.
  • Capitalism in crisis: In periods of economic stagnation, investors seek safe investments. Government bonds offer them a low-risk return, leading to a "financialization" of the economy, in which capital flows into speculative or unproductive investments instead of promoting real investment.

2. Representatives of this School of Thought

• Karl Marx & Marxists
  • Marx criticized capital accumulation through interest as a part of the class struggle in which capital owners profit at the expense of the working class.
• Thomas Piketty (Modern Inequality Research)
  • Piketty argues that wealth (capital) grows faster than general economic output, causing wealthy capital owners to become increasingly wealthy through bonds and other financial instruments.
• Michael Hudson (Critique of Debt Economics)
  • Hudson argues that debt enables not only financial but also political control over states and societies.
• Post-Keynesians & Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
  • This school of thought criticizes the government for unnecessarily indebting itself to private investors instead of creating its own money and directly financing public investments.

---

3. Impact on Politics and Institutions

A) Political Movements and Demands

This school of thought has influenced economic policy debates in various countries:

1. Demand for Debt Relief
   • In the 1990s, there were international movements for the cancellation of developing countries' debt ("Jubilee 2000").
   • Similar demands arose during the euro crisis (2010s), for example, in Greece, where left-wing parties like Syriza called for debt renegotiation.
2. Negative Interest Rates or Direct Government Financing
   • Some MMT proponents propose that central banks directly finance government spending instead of the government issuing bonds to private investors.
   • Japan's policy of ultra-low interest rates (since the 1990s) is seen as an attempt to minimize interest payments on government debt.
3. Higher Wealth Taxes for Redistribution
   • In Germany, France, and the USA, there are calls for greater taxation of large fortunes to reduce government dependence on bond markets.
   • Piketty proposes a progressive capital tax to reduce inequality.

B) Impact on Institutional Resilience

1. Dependence on Financial Markets
   • Countries that rely heavily on debt financing through bonds are more vulnerable to speculative attacks and interest rate increases.
   • Institutions such as the ECB and the Fed have therefore developed programs to stabilize the bond markets.
2. Changes in Central Bank Policy
   • Since the 2008 financial crisis, central banks have increasingly purchased bonds (quantitative easing) to indirectly finance countries and reduce the interest burden.
   • However, this weakens political control over monetary policy, as central banks operate more independently.
3. Erosion of Democratic Control
   • When states have high levels of debt, they often have to implement austerity programs (e.g., Greece after the euro crisis). These programs are monitored by institutions such as the IMF or the EU Commission, which weakens national parliaments.
   • Critics see this as a "financial dictatorship" in which democratic decision-making processes are dominated by markets and banks.

---

4. Conclusion: Debt as an Instrument of Political Power

• The criticism of government debt as "welfare for the rich" has influenced economic policy debates, particularly through calls for debt relief, direct government financing, and higher wealth taxes.
• Institutionally, central banks have established themselves more strongly as crisis managers, which ensures financial stability but also changes democratic processes.
• The question remains: Should the government finance its own debt (MMT approach) or is controlled investor debt unavoidable?

How do you see this? Should the government take control of money creation itself, or does the financial system remain the only alternative despite its inequalities? ????

You said:

Could you please provide an interim summary of the discussion so far in a maximum of ten sentences.

ChatGPT said:

Government debt is viewed differently from different economic perspectives. Classical liberal thinkers see it as a burden that promotes inflation and limits future generations. Keynesians argue that they are necessary to cushion economic crises, while Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) maintains that a state with its own currency can incur unlimited debt. A critical view views interest payments on government debt as an unfair redistribution from the general public to wealthy investors. This idea originates from Marxist and post-Keynesian circles, which criticize financial markets as a mechanism for securing capital power. Politically, this debate has led to calls for debt relief, higher wealth taxes, and direct government financing by central banks. Institutionally, increasing government debt has strengthened the power of financial markets and central banks, while national parliaments often lose influence. Measures such as quantitative easing stabilize markets but shift control over monetary policy to independent institutions. Critics see this as an erosion of democratic decision-making processes in favor of fiscal constraints. The central question remains whether the state should finance its own debt or whether dependence on financial markets is inevitable.

You said:

Germany is currently planning to spend debt on military spending and infrastructure maintenance. This debt is purely consumer spending. How would different schools of thought assess the debt?

ChatGPT said:

The assessment of Germany's planned national debt for military spending and infrastructure maintenance depends heavily on the respective economic school of thought. Here are the most important perspectives:

---

1. Classical Liberal Perspective (Ordoliberalism, Monetarism)

• Assessment: Negative – Debt should only be taken on in absolute emergencies, as it carries long-term risks of inflation and tax increases.
• Justification:
  • Debt for consumption purposes (such as military spending or infrastructure maintenance) does not generate any additional growth effects.
  • The debt burden must be financed in the future through higher taxes or spending cuts.
  • Military spending and maintenance do not generate direct economic added value because they do not increase productivity.
• Policy Recommendation:
  • Financing through cuts elsewhere or through privatization (e.g., public-private partnerships for infrastructure).
  • The debt brake should be maintained to ensure long-term stability.
• Example:
  • Germany should finance defense spending through savings rather than new debt.

Representatives: Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig Erhard.

---

2. Keynesianism

• Assessment: Neutral to positive – Debt can be justified if it ensures economic stability or prevents future crises.
• Justification:
  • Military spending can act as a short-term stimulus for the economy (e.g., orders for the defense industry, jobs).
  • Infrastructure maintenance prevents economic damage caused by dilapidated roads, bridges, etc.
  • When the economy weakens, deficit-financed government spending makes sense to stabilize demand.
• Policy Recommendation:
  • Debt should be incurred during economic downturns and reduced during boom times.
  • Infrastructure investments should be planned for the long term and refinanced through growth gains.
• Example:
  • The US financed the New Deal after the Great Depression with debt to create jobs and growth.

Representatives: John Maynard Keynes, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz.

---

3. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

• Assessment: Positive – The state can borrow unlimitedly in its own currency as long as inflation does not occur.
• Justification:
  • As a sovereign currency user (limited within the Euro system), Germany has sufficient fiscal leeway for debt.
  • Military spending and infrastructure are necessary for national security and social stability.
  • Interest rates on government bonds could be kept low by the ECB to make debt sustainable in the long term.
• Policy Recommendation:
  • Abolish the debt brake and have government spending financed directly by the central bank.
  • The government should pursue a long-term investment strategy instead of focusing on short-term debt targets.
• Example:
  • Japan has had high debt but low inflation for decades – and uses government spending to stabilize the economy.

Representatives: Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Warren Mosler.

---

4. Marxist and Inequality-Critical Perspective

• Assessment: Critical – Military debt is problematic, while infrastructure spending can be sensible depending on its intended use.
• Justification:
  • Military spending is often a redistribution to arms companies and capital interests with no direct benefit to the general population.
  • Infrastructure maintenance can be sensible, but should be financed from wealth taxes rather than debt.
  • Interest on government bonds leads to a redistribution from the bottom to the top, as wealthy investors benefit from the returns.
• Political Recommendation:
  • Critically examine the military budget and instead invest more in social and educational infrastructure.
  • Refinance national debt through progressive taxation of wealth and high incomes.
• Example:
  • Criticism of the US's high military spending, which provides little social benefit while infrastructure suffers.

Representatives: Karl Marx, Thomas Piketty, Michael Hudson.

---

Conclusion: How do schools assess German debt policy?

School of Thought	Assessment of Military Debt	Assessment of Infrastructure Maintenance Debt
Classical Liberal	Negative – No economic added value, should be financed through cuts.	Negative – Should be financed privately or through fees.
Keynesianism	Neutral – Can stabilize the economy in the short term, but not permanently.	Positive – Prevents economic damage and ensures growth.
MMT	Positive – The government can borrow without limit as long as inflation remains manageable.	Positive – Sustainable in the long term if the economy grows.
Marxist/socially critical	Negative – Favors capital interests, not the general population.	Mixed – Should be financed through wealth taxes instead of debt.

Final Thought:
Whether the planned debt for the military and infrastructure makes sense depends heavily on the economic and political perspective.

• Neoliberal critics would demand that spending be financed through cuts or privatizations.
• Keynesians see debt as a necessary evil for economic stability.
• MMT proponents consider debt unproblematic as long as inflation remains controlled.
• Social critics primarily reject military spending and demand fairer financing through taxes.

How would you assess Germany's current debt policy? ????

You said:

A democracy is based on the fundamental idea of ​​human equality. Will additional debt widen the gap between rich and poor? Can this gap be a legitimate reason for revolutionary tendencies within democracies? What other negative consequences are conceivable?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the additional debt could widen the gap between rich and poor, especially if it is financed through rising taxes or cuts in social spending. The effects depend on who holds the debt and how it is repaid:

1. Redistribution effect through interest:
   • Wealthy investors and financial institutions benefit because they buy government bonds and receive secure interest.
   • The state finances these interest rates through tax revenues, which also come from poorer sections of the population.
   • This creates a redistribution from the bottom up – the rich become even wealthier through interest payments.
2. Burden on the general population:
   • If the debt is covered by tax increases on labor (instead of on wealth), it will primarily affect the middle class.
   • Cuts in the welfare state or in public investments could worsen the quality of life of poorer people in the long term.
   • Infrastructure debt could place an even greater burden on the general public if, for example, roads or water pipes have to be refinanced later through fees.
3. Risk of inflation and declining purchasing power:
   • If government spending significantly expands the money supply (without corresponding growth), inflation can occur.
   • Inflation hits poorer households particularly hard, as their savings and incomes lose value, while wealthy people own tangible assets (e.g., real estate, stocks) that increase in value.

Revolutionary tendencies within democracies?

Yes, growing inequality can be a legitimate cause for social unrest and revolutionary movements. Historical examples show that economic inequality often leads to the destabilization of democracies:

• France 1789 (French Revolution): Rising debt burdens and unjust tax policies led to revolts against the privileged elites.
• Weimar Republic (1920s): Economic crises, inflation, and social inequality contributed to the collapse of democracy.
• USA 2008 (Occupy Wall Street): The financial crisis and bank bailouts at government expense led to a protest movement against the "1%" of the super-rich.

Possible political consequences:

• Growth of populist parties that question the existing order.
• Protests and social unrest against rising living costs and declining social security.
• Loss of trust in democratic institutions if the impression arises that politics only serves the rich.

Other negative consequences of government debt:

1. Loss of sovereignty:
   • Countries that incur high levels of debt are dependent on financial markets and creditors.
   • International institutions (e.g., IMF, ECB) can put pressure on governments to adjust their policies.
2. Forced austerity measures ("austerity policy"):
   • High levels of debt often lead to austerity programs that cut education, healthcare, or pensions – which primarily affects poorer people.
   • Example: Greece had to accept massive social cuts after the euro crisis.
3. Generational Injustice:
   • Debt today means a tax burden for future generations if it is not invested productively.
   • Young people then have to pay for decisions made by previous generations.
4. Erosion of Democracy:
   • When high levels of debt lead to crises, the temptation to circumvent democratic processes increases (e.g., emergency laws, technocratic governments).
   • Example: In Italy, after the 2011 debt crisis, an elected government was replaced by a technocratic leadership.

Conclusion: Government debt can contribute to social division

• If debt primarily benefits the rich (via bonds and interest) and is financed through taxes and social cuts, inequality grows.
• This can lead to social discontent, protests, or political extremism in the long term.
• States must therefore decide wisely what they borrow for – debt for investments in future technologies and education is more sustainable than debt for consumer spending.

How would you assess this? Do you consider rising debt a legitimate means or a threat to democracy? ????

You said:

What advantages does a government's debt offer in the short term (5 years), medium term (10 years), and long term (30 years)? What disadvantages result from the debt? Please use the perspectives of the above-mentioned schools of thought in a table comparison.

ChatGPT said:

Here is a table comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of government debt from a short-term, medium-term, and long-term perspective, based on the different schools of thought:

---

Table: Effects of government debt from different schools of thought

Time horizon	Classical liberal view (Ordoliberalism, Monetarism)	Keynesian view	Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)	Marxist/Inequality-critical view
Short-term (0–5 years)	❌ Disadvantage: Government debt leads to rising interest rates and crowds out private investment (crowding-out effect).	✅ Advantage: Debt finances economic stimulus programs, preventing recession and unemployment.	✅ Advantage: The government can take on as much debt as it wants to ensure full employment, as long as inflation remains under control.	❌ Disadvantage: Money goes to financial markets and wealthy investors instead of to social projects.
	❌ Disadvantage: Risk of inflation if central banks print too much money.	❌ Disadvantage: Risk of misinvestment if governments plan inefficiently.	❌ Disadvantage: If too much debt overheats demand, inflation could rise.	✅ Advantage: Debt can be used for redistribution measures (e.g., higher social spending).
Medium term (5–10 years)	❌ Disadvantage: Government must raise taxes or make cuts to repay debt.	✅ Advantage: Long-term infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, education) improve productivity and growth.	✅ Advantage: Government can build infrastructure without worrying about repayment, as it can always create new money.	❌ Disadvantage: Government debt stabilizes capitalism and prevents revolutionary upheavals.
	❌ Disadvantage: Government investments could crowd out private investors and lead to inefficiencies.	❌ Disadvantage: If debt is not channeled into productive areas, there is a risk of strain on the budget.	❌ Disadvantage: High debt could trigger inflation if too much demand is created.	✅ Advantage: Debt could be used to strengthen social justice.
Long term (10–30 years)	❌ Disadvantage: Interest on debt accumulates and limits the government's financial flexibility.	✅ Advantage: Investments in infrastructure, education, and technology increase long-term growth and tax revenue.	✅ Advantage: A country with its own currency can refinance its debt at any time, without the risk of insolvency.	❌ Disadvantage: Debt often leads to austerity measures that dismantle the welfare state.
	❌ Disadvantage: A country could fall into a debt crisis and lose its creditworthiness.	❌ Disadvantage: If the economy does not grow strongly, debt could lead to tax increases.	❌ Disadvantage: If debt leads to inflation, there is a risk of a loss of purchasing power.	✅ Advantage: If debt is financed through wealth taxes, it could lead to greater equality.

---

Conclusion: Who Benefits from Government Debt?

The assessment of government debt depends heavily on the economic perspective:

• Neoliberal critics see debt as a risk to financial stability and future taxpayers.
• Keynesians view debt as a necessary means of stabilizing the economy.
• MMT proponents believe that debt is irrelevant as long as inflation and resource availability are taken into account.
• Marxist thinkers argue that debt often favors the rich and can lead to social tensions.

Which perspective do you find most convincing?

You said:

If you consider the social classes of children, pensioners, workers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, managers, corporations, and civil servants in a country, who gains and who loses from massive national debt, especially in consumer spending such as the military and infrastructure maintenance, from the perspective of the different schools of thought?

ChatGPT said:

Here is a detailed look at the winners and losers from massive government debt for consumer spending (military & infrastructure maintenance), broken down by social class and school of thought:

---

Table: Who Wins and Who Loses from Massive Government Debt for Consumer Spending?

Social Class	Classical Liberal (Ordoliberalism, Monetarism)	Keynesianism	Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)	Marxist/Inequality Critical View
Children	❌ Losing: Higher debt means a long-term tax burden.	✅ Gaining: Investments in infrastructure could improve schools and public services.	✅ Win: As long as inflation remains stable, they benefit from government services.	❌ Lose: Government debt could lead to austerity measures that weaken the education system.
Retirees	❌ Lose: Risk of pension cuts or tax increases to repay debt.	✅ Win: Infrastructure maintenance improves their quality of life (e.g., roads, hospitals).	✅ Win: If pensions are secured through government spending, there is no risk of cuts.	❌ Lose: Higher inflation could devalue pensions.
Workers (employees, skilled workers)	❌ Lose: In the long term, tax increases or wage stagnation threaten.	✅ Win: In the short term, government spending can secure jobs (e.g., construction industry, defense sector).	✅ Win: The government can strive for full employment through deficit spending.	❌ Lose: Government debt could increase upward redistribution in the long term.
Small business owners	❌ Lose: The government could finance the debt by raising taxes on corporate profits.	✅ Win: Maintaining infrastructure facilitates access to markets and customers.	✅ Win: If the government specifically supports small businesses, they benefit.	❌ Losing: If debt leads to higher taxes, small businesses could be hit harder than corporations.
Entrepreneurs (large companies)	✅ Gaining: Government debt finances defense contracts and infrastructure, which benefits companies.	✅ Gaining: When demand increases, companies benefit.	✅ Gaining: The government can award targeted subsidies and contracts.	❌ Lose: If debt leads to redistribution measures (e.g., higher corporate taxes).
Managers	✅ Win: Government spending strengthens certain industries, higher bonuses possible.	✅ Win: Increased economic activity leads to more sales and profit opportunities.	✅ Win: No repayment necessary as long as inflation remains manageable.	❌ Lose: If social movements put pressure on manager salaries and bonuses.
Corporations	✅ Win: Government contracts (e.g., military industry, construction) ensure high profits.	✅ Win: Infrastructure maintenance can reduce transportation and production costs.	✅ Win: The government can provide direct support without repayment obligations.	❌ Lose: If the government finances debt with higher corporate taxes.
Civil servants	❌ Loss: In the long term, the government could freeze salaries or cut jobs through austerity measures.	✅ Gain: In the short term, they benefit from stable salaries and government investments.	✅ Gain: Since the government can create money at will, their salaries are secure.	❌ Loss: If austerity measures later affect social and administrative sectors.

---

Summary: Who Benefits Most?

• Winners in all scenarios:
  ✅ Large companies, managers & corporations – They benefit from government contracts, increasing demand, and infrastructure improvements.
  ✅ Workers and small business owners benefit in the short term when government spending creates new jobs.
• Long-term losers:
  ❌ Children & future generations – Debt will have to be financed at some point, either through higher taxes or cuts.
  ❌ Pensioners & civil servants – If savings become necessary, their incomes or pensions could come under pressure.
  ❌ Small business owners & Workers – If debt is covered by taxes on income or consumption (rather than wealth), they could be burdened more heavily than large corporations.
• Controversial Groups:
  ♦️ Workers and small business owners benefit in the short term from higher demand, but could lose in the long term if inflation rises or taxes hit them harder than corporations.

Conclusion: Government debt is a redistribution mechanism

• Neoliberal economists see debt as a threat to future taxpayers and fear it will be a burden on workers and businesses.
• Keynesians believe that debt generates short-term growth as long as investments are used productively.
• MMT proponents see no obligation to repay as long as inflation remains under control.
• Marxist thinkers argue that debt often benefits the wealthy and increases social inequality.

???? What do you think? Should a government borrow heavily to provide short-term economic stimulus? Or do the long-term risks outweigh the benefits? ????

(ChatGPT may make errors. NO cross-checking is performed.)

^{End of translation with translate.google.de without further cross-checking}