Around 18% of people in Germany directly own shares. In countries such as Sweden or Switzerland, participation in the capital market is much more taken for granted. This is precisely where a difference becomes visible that goes far beyond portfolio figures. In Germany, share ownership is still regarded by many as something between speculation, a casino and a morally questionable sideshow. In Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, this view already seems almost provincial. There, investing is seen more as a normal part of wealth building, retirement provision and personal responsibility.
That is exactly why this comparison is worthwhile. Germany is not so weak at investing because there are no role models. They have long existed. Several countries in Europe have shown for years that a broader equity culture, long-term thinking and greater participation in productive capital are very much possible. So why does Germany cling so stubbornly to misconceptions that cost real wealth?
Germany saves a lot and still protects wealth poorly
Germany does not have a fundamental problem with discipline. Many households save, do without, plan, put money aside and consider themselves cautious. But that is also precisely where Germany’s weakness lies. A lot is saved and comparatively poorly invested. A large part of wealth sits in accounts, in low-interest deposits, in traditional insurance products or in structures that primarily sell a good feeling of security. That looks solid, but in the long term it often is not. Security on paper is not automatically wealth protection in reality.
This is exactly where one of Germany’s most expensive misconceptions lies. Anyone who ignores inflation, currency debasement and real losses of purchasing power confuses nominal calm with genuine stability. The result is bitter: many people save all their lives and still do not protect their wealth.
Norway thinks in generations, not until the next election
Norway is a special case in this debate, but that is precisely why it is so interesting. The country shows what happens when wealth is not simply consumed in the short term, but systematically translated into productive capital. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is the best example of this. The revenues from oil and gas were not simply pumped into current consumption or merely into an ever-expanding welfare system in order to create a short-term good mood. A substantial part was invested globally, for the long term, broadly diversified and with a clear view toward future generations.
Of course, a sovereign wealth fund cannot be directly compared with private households. The lesson is nevertheless clear. Norway does not treat capital as something that must be secured as motionlessly as possible. Capital is supposed to work, grow and finance the future. Politically, Germany often does the opposite. Here, existing substance is preferably redistributed in order to buy short-term calm. The evil image of shareholders is readily painted, and their path is steadily made more difficult. In this country, long-term wealth building plays the leading role in political logic far too rarely.
Sweden shows what equity culture looks like in everyday life
The view toward Sweden is even more exciting for Germany. There, it is not only about state wealth, but about the attitude of entirely ordinary people toward investing. Shares, funds and capital-market-oriented retirement provision appear much more normal in Sweden than in Germany. Not as an exotic topic for specialists, but as a natural part of private financial planning. This is exactly the point that is often underestimated in Germany. Equity culture does not begin in the securities account. It begins in the mind.
Where investing is regarded as a sensible standard, people behave differently. Where, by contrast, people have been taught for decades that the savings book is respectable and the share is suspicious, precisely the culture that Germany has today emerges: a great deal of caution, little participation and surprisingly weak wealth building despite a high propensity to save. Sweden therefore shows something very important. Financial participation grows more easily where it is not constantly culturally under suspicion.
Switzerland does not turn wealth building into a moral problem
Switzerland is also revealing for the comparison. There, financial personal responsibility is much more deeply rooted than in Germany. Wealth building appears less suspicious, less ideologically charged and much more taken for granted. That sounds banal, but it is central. In Germany, wealth is often already treated linguistically as if it had to apologize for itself. In Switzerland, it is more accepted that private provision, capital accumulation and economic independence are normal goals. Not for a small elite, but for broad sections of society.
It is precisely this cultural sobriety that makes the difference. Anyone who wants to build wealth has to justify themselves less there. And where there is less moralizing, thinking is often clearer too.
Germany does not have a financial education problem, but a cultural problem
It would be too convenient to explain German reluctance to invest solely by a lack of knowledge. The problem lies deeper. For decades, our society has cultivated a cultural mistrust of the capital market, returns and wealth formation that persists to this day. Anyone who invests often has to explain themselves. Anyone who does not invest is quickly considered sensible. This imbalance is exactly the problem. Productive capital is not a questionable special area. Companies do not grow through savings accounts. Innovation is not made possible by overnight money. Prosperity is not preserved by leaving as much money as possible lying around motionless. Yet Germany often acts exactly as if passivity were the more respectable virtue.
In the end, this produces a strange morality. Returns should please exist, but preferably invisibly. Wealth should grow, but without the capital market. Retirement provision should work, but without fluctuation. Exactly these contradictions have paralyzed this country for years.
What Germany must learn
Germany does not have to copy Norway, Sweden or Switzerland. But Germany would finally have to clear away some of its most expensive illusions.
1. Security is not the same as protection
An account with low interest feels safe. Anyone who loses real purchasing power over years with it is nevertheless not protected. This money loses value by 100%. This simple truth is still spoken honestly far too rarely in Germany.
2. Investing must become culturally normal
As long as share ownership is treated like a risky special path, participation will remain low. Investing must move out of the corner of justification and into financial normality. Anyone who does not make sensible provision for their old age should be the one put in the corner.
3. Long-term wealth building needs tailwind
Anyone who constantly puts wealth formation under pressure through taxes, regulation or rhetoric should not be surprised when people stay away. Participation grows where it is wanted, not where it is constantly viewed with skepticism.
4. Financial education must not end with savings tips
It is not enough to teach people how to control expenses. It is also about understanding why capital must be invested productively, how real returns work and why simply leaving money lying around for years is often expensive. Everyone should learn what inflation really means and what it does to everyone’s life’s work.
Conclusion: Stop with the life lies!
Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are different. The political systems, the wealth structures and the social framework conditions are not identical. And yet these countries are connected by something that Germany strikingly often lacks: a more adult view of capital. There, it is more readily accepted that prosperity must not only be earned, but also sensibly invested. That wealth demands responsibility, but also participation. And that long-term stability does not arise from completely avoiding risks, but from consciously taking viable risks.
Germany struggles with exactly that. Not because the tools are lacking. Not because people are too stupid. But because too many misconceptions still look like reason and are also sold as such. Too much illusion of security, too little participation. Too much mistrust of capital, too little understanding of productive wealth. Too much short-term political logic, too little long-term wealth perspective.
