NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1562805,00.html
The end may very well be near, as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder clearly lost in the debate with his rival, Angela Merkel. Schroeder, for his part, is trying hard. He even tried to take the tough stance to US foreign policy, which rescued him last election. But alas, the German people have more pressing concerns, like the stagnant economy.
Ms. Merkel seems to be new blood into the German system. Being freed from Soviet domination in East Germany, she knows what it means to earn her living. And I believe that unlike the entitlement system Schroeder has built, which has left the once-mighty German economy exhausted, Merkel will help Germans back on their feet. I don't know if she will succeed, I mean, the Germans could elect a fractous Bundestag. But I am nearly confident she will win.

bump

Thatcherism in Germany...hmm...they will have to endure a decade of economic collapse before it starts getting better.

Thatcherism in Germany...hmm...they will have to endure a decade of economic collapse before it starts getting better.
What's wrong with Thatcherism?

What's wrong with Thatcherism?

I think the general increase in poverty, the civil unrest and the general hatred of Thatcher in the public are small hints.

I think the general increase in poverty, the civil unrest and the general hatred of Thatcher in the public are small hints.
Well I like her because of her repeal of oppressive taxes, giving flexibility to the labor market, and standing up to some really, really big unions. She gave British foreign policy teeth again, but that's not economic policy. But anyhow, whatever Merkel's ideas are, they are probably better than Schroeder's.

What's wrong with Thatcherism?
I already said what's wrong with it. A decade of economic collapse and widespread povery before things begin to recover. You can sell the dream to the public, but then have to keep them on side through a lot of greater hardship.

Well I like her because of her repeal of oppressive taxes Hahahahaha! Poll tax anyone?*rolls on the floor* Oh dear, that was a good one., giving flexibility to the labor market, and standing up to some really, really big unions. I'll give her that, she broke the unions which was necessary. Unfortunately she also crushed our indigenous heavy labour jobs (shipbuilding, mining etc) in the process. She gave British foreign policy teeth again, Not Thatcherism per se but the actions she was called on for required action, she made the right moves. but that's not economic policy. But anyhow, whatever Merkel's ideas are, they are probably better than Schroeder's. Interesting aside, the Communists are gaining ground in the East, mostly with the generations that lived under the soviets.

bolded.

I already said what's wrong with it. A decade of economic collapse and widespread povery before things begin to recover. You can sell the dream to the public, but then have to keep them on side through a lot of greater hardship.
They lasted only for a few years. Besides, I feel that any "collapse" would be far less likely in Germany if it opened its economy to the rest of the world. Back during the early days of Thatcherism, there was no economy, except maybe the (faltering) US, to do business with that was as liberal. Not anymore. In fact, the primary problem facing Germany is its refusal to open its economy to the world.

They lasted only for a few years. Besides, I feel that any "collapse" would be far less likely in Germany if it opened its economy to the rest of the world. Back during the early days of Thatcherism, there was no economy, except maybe the (faltering) US, to do business with that was as liberal. Not anymore. In fact, the primary problem facing Germany is its refusal to open its economy to the world.
What? Germany is the most efficient and the largest net exporter in Europe, if not the world (barring China/India).

bolded.
Heavy industries are what rebuilt Europe after WWII. Unfortunatly, no one seemed to realize that it might be less expensive to have the work offshored, and focus on other industries. The labor market in continental Europe is so stagnant because the continent clings to protect its industries. Never mind the fact that they are already loosing ground to Eastern Europeans that do the same thing, only more cheaply and better.
But there may be some hope. A lot of Germany's unemployed have been unemployed for several months, if not years. They are probably more willing to be retrained than, say, a fifty-five year old steelworker that became one when he graduated from high school.
As for the resurgence of communism in the East, that is little more than nostalgia. Some Eastern Europeans feel disenfranchised because they are unable or unwilling to understand how a market system works. But they are small, and it has only been a big movement in one country: Moldova. Even there, its so-called Communist government is encouraging foreign investment and seeking NATO and EU membership.

What? Germany is the most efficient and the largest net exporter in Europe, if not the world (barring China/India).

The thing hurting Germany the most (besides its taxes) are its policies on labor. Companies have to spend a considerable amount of money on their workers (something like 80% of salary) for several years after the employees are laid off; they also have to consult the workers far more, which can often hurt the company because workers aren't going to support job cuts or pay cuts very easily. The end result is that companies are simply afraid to hire workers, because if they have to ever lay off any, they will still incur huge costs. It's cheaper to outsource to the US, Canada, or Asia and get the same work without the laws.

Germany's got great economic potential in itself, but its regulations are forcing it in to stagnation.

What? Germany is the most efficient and the largest net exporter in Europe, if not the world (barring China/India).
Germany did, in fact, surpass the US as the largest exporter in terms of absolute value. But most of its goods are heavier industry: steel, chemicals, ships, and a few consumer goods, like cars. Most of those things are made more cheaply outside Germany. Indeed, the largest US Steel plant to open in recent years was in Slovakia. Germany should focus more of its energies on things like high tech and pharmaceuticals, and it should encourage many more service jobs.

As for the resurgence of communism in the East, that is little more than nostalgia. Some Eastern Europeans feel disenfranchised because they are unable or unwilling to understand how a market system works. But they are small, and it has only been a big movement in one country: Moldova. Even there, its so-called Communist government is encouraging foreign investment and seeking NATO and EU membership.

Nostalgia for the days when jobs existed from what I'm seeing. Apparently the party has a solid chance of taking a critical slab in the region.

Small or not, elected representatives from a communist party are a pretty major thing in a capitalist society I'd say.

In fact, the primary problem facing Germany is its refusal to open its economy to the world.
Yeah, millions of industrial workers should be made unemployed, and their jobs outsourced to the Indian Subcontinent.

The welfare bill should be cut.

And if they revert to criminality to feed their families...give the police budget some lovin'.

The Anglo-American Way. No thanks.

Nostalgia for the days when jobs existed from what I'm seeing. Apparently the party has a solid chance of taking a critical slab in the region.

Small or not, elected representatives from a communist party are a pretty major thing in a capitalist society I'd say.
A. Germany is not a true capitalist society, but a highly mixed one.
B. Of course everyone had a job. It was illegal to stay at home. But it served no one in the end. Workers were paid, regardless of how much effort they put into the job. Many slacked off, and were still paid. This was the mess where Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in, as did Deng Xiaoping.

Germany did, in fact, surpass the US as the largest exporter in terms of absolute value. But most of its goods are heavier industry: steel, chemicals, ships, and a few consumer goods, like cars. Most of those things are made more cheaply outside Germany. Indeed, the largest US Steel plant to open in recent years was in Slovakia. Germany should focus more of its energies on things like high tech and pharmaceuticals, and it should encourage many more service jobs.
"There are also signs that efforts to improve Germany's long-term economic performance are beginning to pay off. Apart from lowering labour costs still further, Germany can strive to be more competitive only through innovation and improved conditions for investment. A perceived “innovation gap”, which is closely linked to failings in education and research, has attracted much more atttention in recent years. Academics and business analysts have pointed out the Germans remain excellent at inventing things, but are far less effective at perfecting them and bringing them to market. Germany has been hostile to technology, says Ludolf von Wartenberg, managing director of the BDI, Germany's Industry Federation, and has missed out, for example, on both green (agricultural) and red (medical) biotechnologies. “It has to do with our education system,” says Mr von Wartenberg. “We need an Aufklärung (an age of enlightenment).”

This is where he believes politics can make a difference. In 2004 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder formally launched an initiative with leading companies, dubbed “partners for innovation”. Various working groups have been set up, including ones for stimulating new approaches to information technology, specialist materials, education, energy conservation, computerising health services and harnessing venture capital and state aid. Some of these groups have begun long-term projects that will survive any change of government that results from next month's election. And there is money available to publicise the long-term importance of innovation for the economy."

Yeah, millions of industrial workers should be made unemployed, and their jobs outsourced to the Indian Subcontinent.

The welfare bill should be cut.

And if they revert to criminality to feed their families...give the police budget some lovin'.

The Anglo-American Way. No thanks.
Let's here your alternative.

Yeah, millions of industrial workers should be made unemployed, and their jobs outsourced to the Indian Subcontinent..

Millions of workers are already unemployed, and outsourcing will happen regardless. Doing nothing will do incredible harm to the German economy and won't help the unemployed but worsen their situation, and you'll see the living standards fall steadily as growth stagnates and population grows. If you don't open the economy, it will collapse under the burden of government and regulation.

"There are also signs that efforts to improve Germany's long-term economic performance are beginning to pay off. Apart from lowering labour costs still further, Germany can strive to be more competitive only through innovation and improved conditions for investment. A perceived “innovation gap”, which is closely linked to failings in education and research, has attracted much more atttention in recent years. Academics and business analysts have pointed out the Germans remain excellent at inventing things, but are far less effective at perfecting them and bringing them to market. Germany has been hostile to technology, says Ludolf von Wartenberg, managing director of the BDI, Germany's Industry Federation, and has missed out, for example, on both green (agricultural) and red (medical) biotechnologies. “It has to do with our education system,” says Mr von Wartenberg. “We need an Aufklärung (an age of enlightenment).”

This is where he believes politics can make a difference. In 2004 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder formally launched an initiative with leading companies, dubbed “partners for innovation”. Various working groups have been set up, including ones for stimulating new approaches to information technology, specialist materials, education, energy conservation, computerising health services and harnessing venture capital and state aid. Some of these groups have begun long-term projects that will survive any change of government that results from next month's election. And there is money available to publicise the long-term importance of innovation for the economy."
That type of subsidization seems great for the first few years, and then its effects taper off, as the world passes it buy. Why innovate when a check from Berlin comes once a month?

Let's here your alternative.
The alternative is to carry on as things are. Social democracy works. I'm surprised so many people feel so threatened by it.

The alternative is to carry on as things are. Social democracy works. I'm surprised so many people feel so threatened by it.

It might, but it needs serious reform. The German, Italian and French models are suffering serious economic problems while the rest of Europe is doing fairly well (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands are doing as well as the US in both growth and unemploymwnt). The problem seems to be these countries' models rather than the actual idea.

The alternative is to carry on as things are. Social democracy works. I'm surprised so many people feel so threatened by it.
So, let's see here. We keep unemployment at 12.5%, have the economy hemorrhage money, have continued deflation, and continue to make things that are made more efficiently elsewhere. Oh, and pretend that globalization isn't happening. No, that doesn't work. Your own country, on the other hand, is fine. It has a flexible labor market that gives it low unemployment rates, a socially mobile middle class, and more people in high paying service jobs. Did I mention an economy that actually grows, too?

That type of subsidization seems great for the first few years, and then its effects taper off, as the world passes it buy. Why innovate when a check from Berlin comes once a month?
Pure research almost has to be government funded. There is no benefit in doing it. That's why most pure (that is, with no direct commercial result, such as nuclear theory and quite a bit of the basis of biology) in the US is done by universities (government funded or grant based) and large research labs. That's what Germany is attempting to regain from us.

Pure research almost has to be government funded. There is no benefit in doing it. That's why most pure (that is, with no direct commercial result, such as nuclear theory and quite a bit of the basis of biology) in the US is done by universities (government funded or grant based) and large research labs. That's what Germany is attempting to regain from us.
That's basic research, however. Schroeder's government is also funding the advance research that is done by private companies and labs. If you ever want to see what subsidies can do to a company, just take a look at IBM, and where it was by 1993.
That's another thing they can do: privatize their higher education system. No one ever heard of the German equivilant of Harvard, Oxford, or Sorbonne for a reason: they charge no tuition, and get lazy off government money.

That's basic research, however. Schroeder's government is also funding the advance research that is done by private companies and labs. If you ever want to see what subsidies can do to a company, just take a look at IBM, and where it was by 1993.
That's another thing they can do: privatize their higher education system. No one ever heard of the German equivilant of Harvard, Oxford, or Sorbonne for a reason: they charge no tuition, and get lazy off government money.
Oxford doesn't charge (major amounts) tuition either, neither do the good research schools (grad level, ofc).

Pure research almost has to be government funded. There is no benefit in doing it. That's why most pure (that is, with no direct commercial result, such as nuclear theory and quite a bit of the basis of biology) in the US is done by universities (government funded or grant based) and large research labs. That's what Germany is attempting to regain from us.

It should be a combination of both. The most important part of the subsidy of research has to be some kind of accountability. The ventures funded by the government have to produce at least some kind of results or have some kind of data. Otherwise, they just stagnate and become another government bureaucracy.

It should be a combination of both. The most important part of the subsidy of research has to be some kind of accountability. The ventures funded by the government have to produce at least some kind of results or have some kind of data. Otherwise, they just stagnate and become another government bureaucracy.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they just throw money at research institutions and hope something comes out.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they just throw money at research institutions and hope something comes out.

Nobody is, but the government has a habit of doing this to placate special interests.

It might, but it needs serious reform. The German, Italian and French models are suffering serious economic problems while the rest of Europe is doing fairly well (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands are doing as well as the US in both growth and unemploymwnt). The problem seems to be these countries' models rather than the actual idea.
My contention is that the social democrats can make the system work on a smaller scale nation, but when you get into larger nations it has some major problems. Bureaucratic mess, national administration and the like. The larger the nation, the more decentralized everything has to be for efficiency. Unfotuneately for SD's, they have a tough time decentralizing stuff to appropriate levels, and it becomes a bureaucratic quagmire.

I'll type that real big QUAGMIRE.

Let little countries who can afford to spend their money on such things do so, but when you've got big-ass countries, you might as well admit that a more capitalist system works far more efficiently. Just my mildly drunk opinion of course, don't be surprised if I change details later. Even with my body size/muscle percentage I can only drink so much.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1562805,00.html
The end may very well be near, as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder clearly lost in the debate with his rival, Angela Merkel.

What? http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,373094,00.html :

Eine erste Umfrage der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen sah Schröder als klaren Halbzeitsieger des TV-Duells. Nach der Erhebung für das ZDF erklärten 46 Prozent der Befragten nach der ersten Hälfte der Fernsehdiskussion, der Amtsinhaber habe besser abgeschnitten. Merkel sahen nur 27 Prozent als Sieger. Ebenfalls 27 Prozent sagten, beide hätten gleich gut abgeschnitten. Laut der Umfrage konnte Schröder vor allem bei den Werten für Glaubwürdigkeit und für Sympathie punkten, bei der Kompetenz für den Abbau der Massenarbeitslosigkeit lag demnach allerdings Merkel vorn.

Zu einem ähnlichen Ergebnis kam eine Blitzumfrage des Fernsehsenders Sat.1. Demnach erhielt Schröder bei der Frage nach der Kompetenz 57 Prozent, Merkel 34 Prozent. In der Kategorie Sympathie bekam er 56 Prozent, Merkel 34 Prozent.

Das Institut Infratest dimap sah Schröder in einer Umfrage für die ARD als Sieger in den meisten Punkten. Demnach war Schröder für 49 Prozent der 1276 Befragten "überzeugender" als Merkel (33 Prozent). Bei der Mehrzahl der Einzelfragen lag Schröder vorne: Rentenpolitik (51:37 Prozent), Familienpolitik (40:50), Äußeres (71:19), Steuern (49:38), Arbeitsmarkt (35:46).

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=458090&previousRenderType=6

Schröder kallas ibland för "mediekanslern", och var i förväg favorit till att vinna debatten. Enligt de första mätningarna på sent söndagskvällen tyckte också 60 procent av tittarna att Schröder klarade sig bäst medan 28 procent menade att Merkel var kvällens segrare. Schröder framstod enligt mätningen också som mer trovärdig och sympatisk. Men siffrorna för CDU-ledaren var bättre än väntat, och tittarna trodde mer på Merkel än på Schröder när det gäller att föra en politik som skapar nya jobb.

*sobs*

I can't remember the english translation of Rentenpolitik

*sobs*

I can't remember the english translation of Rentenpolitik

Rentenpolitik ~ Pension/Retirement politics/policy.

What? http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,373094,00.html :

Eine erste Umfrage der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen sah Schröder als klaren Halbzeitsieger des TV-Duells. Nach der Erhebung für das ZDF erklärten 46 Prozent der Befragten nach der ersten Hälfte der Fernsehdiskussion, der Amtsinhaber habe besser abgeschnitten. Merkel sahen nur 27 Prozent als Sieger. Ebenfalls 27 Prozent sagten, beide hätten gleich gut abgeschnitten. Laut der Umfrage konnte Schröder vor allem bei den Werten für Glaubwürdigkeit und für Sympathie punkten, bei der Kompetenz für den Abbau der Massenarbeitslosigkeit lag demnach allerdings Merkel vorn.

Zu einem ähnlichen Ergebnis kam eine Blitzumfrage des Fernsehsenders Sat.1. Demnach erhielt Schröder bei der Frage nach der Kompetenz 57 Prozent, Merkel 34 Prozent. In der Kategorie Sympathie bekam er 56 Prozent, Merkel 34 Prozent.

Das Institut Infratest dimap sah Schröder in einer Umfrage für die ARD als Sieger in den meisten Punkten. Demnach war Schröder für 49 Prozent der 1276 Befragten "überzeugender" als Merkel (33 Prozent). Bei der Mehrzahl der Einzelfragen lag Schröder vorne: Rentenpolitik (51:37 Prozent), Familienpolitik (40:50), Äußeres (71:19), Steuern (49:38), Arbeitsmarkt (35:46).

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=458090&previousRenderType=6

Schröder kallas ibland för "mediekanslern", och var i förväg favorit till att vinna debatten. Enligt de första mätningarna på sent söndagskvällen tyckte också 60 procent av tittarna att Schröder klarade sig bäst medan 28 procent menade att Merkel var kvällens segrare. Schröder framstod enligt mätningen också som mer trovärdig och sympatisk. Men siffrorna för CDU-ledaren var bättre än väntat, och tittarna trodde mer på Merkel än på Schröder när det gäller att föra en politik som skapar nya jobb.

Sorry, kid. I don't read German.

Sorry, kid. I don't read German.
Basically: Most Germans believed Schroeder kicked ass.

Basically: Most Germans believed Schroeder kicked ass.
I'd have to read the article. But every other article I read said that Schroeder stumbled a lot. Besides, I've seen a lot of polls. Merkel's party isn't exactly in the lead anymore, but it is enough needed to form a coalition government.

I'd have to read the article. But every other article I read said that Schroeder stumbled a lot. Besides, I've seen a lot of polls. Merkel's party isn't exactly in the lead anymore, but it is enough needed to form a coalition government.
Rough english translation (found one), from another article on the same topic
It was the biggest TV event since Germany lost to Brazil in the 2002 World Cup final. Some 20 million Germans tuned in to watch the only debate of the German election campaign between the chancellor Gerhard Schröder and his conservative challenger Angela Merkel. But who actually won? Well, if you believe the polls conducted immediately after the gripping 90-minute clash it was a clear victory for Gerd – as Schröder’s friends call him.

According to a poll for ZDF television, some 48% of viewers believed Schröder was the winner, while only 28% thought Merkel had triumphed. And among undecided voters his figures were even better, with 58 per saying that Gerd had won, compared to only 16% for Angie. At first glance the result seems baffling – not least given that most journalists (including this one) thought Frau Merkel got the better of her rival. She seemed quicker than Schröder, superior when it came to detail – and even made a joke.

Rough english translation (found one), from another article on the same topic
It was the biggest TV event since Germany lost to Brazil in the 2002 World Cup final. Some 20 million Germans tuned in to watch the only debate of the German election campaign between the chancellor Gerhard Schröder and his conservative challenger Angela Merkel. But who actually won? Well, if you believe the polls conducted immediately after the gripping 90-minute clash it was a clear victory for Gerd – as Schröder’s friends call him.

According to a poll for ZDF television, some 48% of viewers believed Schröder was the winner, while only 28% thought Merkel had triumphed. And among undecided voters his figures were even better, with 58 per saying that Gerd had won, compared to only 16% for Angie. At first glance the result seems baffling – not least given that most journalists (including this one) thought Frau Merkel got the better of her rival. She seemed quicker than Schröder, superior when it came to detail – and even made a joke.
I don't know much about German campaigning, but I assume that it is just like in other free nations. And if that's the case, public perceptions won't hold for long. The media has a surprising amount of sway, though perhaps not as much in Germany, which tightly regulates its media.

bump
And btw, Schroeder, as we all know, has many economic policies. It therefore baffles me how anyone can support him, despite having a stagnant economy and the most unemployed people, in absolute numbers and as a percentage, in all of Western Europe. This many people have not been unemployed in Germany since the Great Depression.

bump
And btw, Schroeder, as we all know, has many economic policies. It therefore baffles me how anyone can support him, despite having a stagnant economy and the most unemployed people, in absolute numbers and as a percentage, in all of Western Europe. This many people have not been unemployed in Germany since the Great Depression.
Because Germany is actually turning around, after decades of being stuck in its slump.

Because Germany is actually turning around, after decades of being stuck in its slump.
It wasn't in there for decades. It was doing fine, going through the regular business cycles. Reunification hurt a bit, and the Germans flipped out. Now they are stuck with this guy that is keeping Germany down because of his ideas of "equality". And the economy is not turning around, or, more accurately, it is trying to, and the government won't let them. Germany has very tight laws regarding hiring and firing, has complicated rules for business entry and bankruptcy, and is slow to enforce contracts. In fact, in The World Bank's International Finance Commission's study Doing Business in 2004t ranked with many third world nations on these four points plus a fifth one (obtaining credit). Think of this: the World Bank, an institution that primarily services developing countries, tells Germany that they have the systems of a third world nation. Out of all developed countries, only Italy scored lower (which needs reforms of its own).