NationStates Jolt Archive

That is correct ladies and gentlemen,

After seven years, Schroeder has been defeated in the German election. However, Merkel did not receive a clear cut mandate to govern and Schroeder is saying that he should head the next German government.

According to what I've been reading, do to the closeness of the vote the next government could be weaker due to the difficulty of forming a coalition.

What is your thoughts, especially from the Germans.

Merkel Tops Schroeder in German Elections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169725,00.html)
Germany's Schroeder vows to find winning pact (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/18/germany.election/index.htm)

Schroeder knows he cannot govern anymore. He's out. The Left Party refuses to govern with him and I don't think he will govern with them anyways.

I really don't think the SDP will do a coalition with the CDU+FDP. I really have no idea what they are goiing to do. The voters really screwed up here. CDU+FDP+Greens? I heard that as a possibility.. but is that going to be effective? I highly doubt it. I know there will be a center-right CDU-led government.. but it is going to have to do a lot of political manuvuerng to be effective.. and I MEAN A WHOLE LOT.

This is the, let me see..., 4th thread with this topic. I suggest you check some of the others.
Here's my view on the election:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9663299#post9663299

And just for the record: Merkel did everything but top Schröder. She actually managed to lose votes in an election that was as clear-cut as anything. Schröder ran circles around her.

But this wasn't about Politicians (perhaps difficult to comprehend in a country like the US), but about parties and programs.
And I do ask that you refrain from any "the voters screwed up there" comments. Voters never screw up, only parties do.

PS: The Libertarians got their second highest result ever...

I felt like some voters did not give Merkel a chance and changed their minds. However Schroeder still lost and I think this was more of a blow to him and his party.

I felt like some voters did not give Merkel a chance and changed their minds.
I did...but that's a secret. ;)

However Schroeder still lost and I think this was more of a blow to him and his party.
Schröder isn't conceding anything, and with one of the candidates in Dresden dying, and their election postponed a week or two, theoretically the SPD could even become strongest party.

But in Germany it never really is win or lose. You need a majority of 300 seats to govern, and CDU/CSU & FDP failed to get that, although it should have been the easiest thing in the world.
Which leaves a lot of infighting to be done. And I think it'll end with a Grand Coalition, no matter what Schröder said on election night. Afterall, his deputy Müntefering said something completely different.

But even if for some reason Schröder would've been utterly defeated, that was his point. He called for the early elections, officially because he didn't have a majority (probably not true, his party stayed behind him), inofficially because he had enough.
His policies were good, and it wasn't his fault that no new jobs were being created. He wanted the change into opposition, let the other side worry about it. It's not an easy job, being German Chancellor these days.

It's surprising though to see how much energy was still left in this man, after all he had to endure. He loves election campaigns, and he managed to do the impossible.

It may not have been a SPD Victory, but it certainly wasn't a defeat.

And I do ask that you refrain from any "the voters screwed up there" comments. Voters never screw up, only parties do.


It is axiomatic, that in a democracy, the voting public always gets exactly the government it deserves.

I would say that voters screw up all the time. (The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter: W.S. Churchill).

It is axiomatic, that in a democracy, the voting public always gets exactly the government it deserves.
a) Churchill wasn't exactly a capable politician, and I for one think that he had a certain admiration for the strong man Governments of Continental Europe.

b) True, to an extent. Economics has made some investigation into policy failure as well (but that's probably better covered by a PoliSci Specialist).

But even if for some reason Schröder would've been utterly defeated, that was his point. He called for the early elections, officially because he didn't have a majority (probably not true, his party stayed behind him), inofficially because he had enough.
His policies were good, and it wasn't his fault that no new jobs were being created. He wanted the change into opposition, let the other side worry about it. It's not an easy job, being German Chancellor these days.

First off his policies were inadequate. There needed to be more free market reforms to reduce the welfare state and make the labor market more flexible. As I say.. reform or wither away.


It may not have been a SPD Victory, but it certainly wasn't a defeat.

It was a defeat for the SPD, and Schroder specifically is out of power.

That is correct ladies and gentlemen,

After seven years, Schroeder has been defeated in the German election. However, Merkel did not receive a clear cut mandate to govern and Schroeder is saying that he should head the next German government.

According to what I've been reading, do to the closeness of the vote the next government could be weaker due to the difficulty of forming a coalition.

What is your thoughts, especially from the Germans.

Merkel Tops Schroeder in German Elections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169725,00.html)
Germany's Schroeder vows to find winning pact (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/18/germany.election/index.htm)
That you shouldn't be turning to Faux News for information, silly.
Merkel "tops" Schröder? I wouldn't call dropping from a majority in the polls that would have allowed the CDU rule Germany ALONE to pretty much a tie (we'll have to wait until a specific district in Dresden gets to vote to see how much of a tie) a "topping".
Ladies and Gentlemen, that's a clear defeat. Schröder has done much better in the elections than anyone but him expected. The only thing that's sure is that there won't be a red-green or black-yellow government and that the Linkspartei won't be involved.

I just read the article. It fails to address the issue properly...

What is your take on the German Election then Laerod?

a) Churchill wasn't exactly a capable politician, and I for one think that he had a certain admiration for the strong man Governments of Continental Europe.


But he was voted the greatest briton in history by the British public. :)

But he was voted the greatest briton in history by the British public. :)

And named Greatest Recorded Orator, by me :)

And named Greatest Recorded Orator, by me :)

I thought Hitler was a better orator than Churchill. Hitler most definitely had a way with words.

First off his policies were inadequate. There needed to be more free market reforms to reduce the welfare state and make the labor market more flexible. As I say.. reform or wither away.
You can debate about the extent of his reforms, but their direction was 100% correct.
It is in this case the wrong party to do it though, the SPD is almost 200 years old (well, make that 150), and it has always been for the social system and worker's rights. One shouldn't be surprised that these policies were tough to get through.
And one should keep in mind that the CDU/CSU held power in the Senate (here: Bundesrat), and continuously weakened and changed reform resolutions in order to play party politics.

Germany is the country which lowered non-wage labour costs by the most in the last few years. Schröder isn't a socialist, far from it. You'd be better off comparing him to some "third way"-politicians, like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair.

It was a defeat for the SPD, and Schroder specifically is out of power.
How come? This is a multi-party system. Until the coalitions are formed, we know nothing. And right now, Schröder is just as likely to get on top of a Grand Coalition Government as Merkel is. Plus the people like him more.

Plus the people like him more.

If that were true then his party would've won the majority of the seats and they didn't. That is like me saying that people liked Bush more in 2000.

It was a defeat for the SPD, and Schroder specifically is out of power.Not yet he isn't. I personally doubt that he'll be chancellor after coalition talks happen, but it's not impossible.
The CDU losing heavily since last election and coming to another tie when the CDU had been leading in the polls ever since new elections were planned is a victory for the SPD. Consider it like a soccer game in which the black team is beating the red team by 5 goals at halftime and then the red time manages to equalize. That would be a victory for the SPD.
The CDU managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory.

You can debate about the extent of his reforms, but their direction was 100% correct.
It is in this case the wrong party to do it though, the SPD is almost 200 years old (well, make that 150), and it has always been for the social system and worker's rights. One shouldn't be surprised that these policies were tough to get through.
And one should keep in mind that the CDU/CSU held power in the Senate (here: Bundesrat), and continuously weakened and changed reform resolutions in order to play party politics.

There needs to be better reforms. Those proposed by Schroder were half measures. Half measures are not acceptable.

If that were true then his party would've won the majority of the seats and they didn't. That is like me saying that people liked Bush more in 2000.Wrong assumption. The German people don't elect the chancellor, we elect the parliament. IF this had been an election based on whom the people preferred to have for chancellor (as in forget about all the issues) then Schröder would have enough votes to rule without the Green Party, as polls prior to the election showed.
We don't vote the man, we vote the party.

There needs to be better reforms. Those proposed by Schroder were half measures. Half measures are not acceptable.Because of a certain conservative party blocking anything but half measures.

Wrong assumption. The German people don't elect the chancellor, we elect the parliament. IF this had been an election based on whom the people preferred to have for chancellor (as in forget about all the issues) then Schröder would have enough votes to rule without the Green Party, as polls prior to the election showed.
We don't vote the man, we vote the party.

yea and his party LOST technically speaking.

If that were true then his party would've won the majority of the seats and they didn't. That is like me saying that people liked Bush more in 2000.
You need to seperate parties from politicians here. Schröder is more popular than Merkel, even if his party may have lost votes (as did Merkel's).
I heard a study this morning that said that more than (I think) 57% of people decided on basis of party programs rather than persons.

There needs to be better reforms. Those proposed by Schroder were half measures. Half measures are not acceptable.
Fair enough, but I do have to ask you:
a) What would your policies have been?
b) How likely would it have been that you could have put them into practice (remembering that the Chancellor has much less power than the President in the US does)?
c) Where do you think Schröder failed specifically?

I assume you know what Schröder's reforms were specifically.

What is your take on the German Election then Laerod?I'm not surprised, dissappointed, or thrilled. I'm glad the Greens got a rather stable result, pleased that the arrogant pricks of the CDU got a serious bashing, and I have a smug feeling that I was right about it being so close that it would be a tie, without it being an electoral victory for either side. The only thing that caught me off guard was the FDP getting 10%, which is an incredible gain for them.

yea and his party LOST technically speaking.Yes, but people liked him more than Merkel.

Here's a link (http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/forsa/528227.html?nv=cp_L2_aa) showing a poll on whom would have been elected if it was based on personal preference.

I'm not surprised, dissappointed, or thrilled. I'm glad the Greens got a rather stable result, pleased that the arrogant pricks of the CDU got a serious bashing, and I have a smug feeling that I was right about it being so close that it would be a tie, without it being an electoral victory for either side. The only thing that caught me off guard was the FDP getting 10%, which is an incredible gain for them.

Thank you!

Now who thinks that Merkel will actuall head the German Government?

Now who thinks that Merkel will actuall head the German Government?
Unless the Greens do the U-Turn and get into coalition with the Union and FDP, I don't see it.
Schröder is too much of "da Man!!!" right now to be brushed aside, and he already stated explicitly: "There is not going to be a Government without me at the helm!"
Which dumbfounded everyone...

And here is a few pics that are great to show the state of mind of everyone. The captions are in German, but that's not too important.
http://www.zeit.de/online/2005/38/bildergalerie_wahlsonntag

a) What would your policies have been?
b) How likely would it have been that you could have put them into practice (remembering that the Chancellor has much less power than the President in the US does)?
c) Where do you think Schröder failed specifically?


My policies:

1) Reduce size of state welfare system

2) Make it easier for businesses to hire and fire

3) Lower income taxes

4) Reduce corporate taxes

5) Reduce environmental restrictions

Schroder is a failure of a leader. He's all hot air, and he has fallen short in just about everything.. especially with relation to reforms

Thank you!

Now who thinks that Merkel will actuall head the German Government?It's more likely than anything else, but not much more likely. The choices right now are:
Schwampel Koalition (Black-Yellow-Green)
Ampel Koalition (Red-Yellow-Green)
Große Koalition (Red-Black)
I left out anything with the Linkspartei since no one is interested in joining with them. The first two options are unlikely, since the candidate of the FDP(Yellow) Guido Westerwelle has categorically ruled out a coalition with the Greens (Green) and the SPD (Red). This makes a coalition between the SPD and CDU (Black) most likely. I have no idea who will lead such a coalition. The fact that the SPD might have less seats than the CDU doesn't mean that they wouldn't be the ones providing the chancellor. And I'm pretty sure Merkel wouldn't have any leading position if that was the result of the coalition.
This doesn't mean that Merkel as chancellor is unlikely. It's just slightly more likely than any of the other unlikely options.

My policies:

1) Reduce size of state welfare system

2) Make it easier for businesses to hire and fire

3) Lower income taxes

4) Reduce corporate taxes

5) Reduce environmental restrictionsThat wouldn't have saved Germany. And even if it would, you wouldn't have gotten many votes...

It's more likely than anything else, but not much more likely. The choices right now are:
Schwampel Koalition (Black-Yellow-Green)
Ampel Koalition (Red-Yellow-Green)
Große Koalition (Red-Black)
I left out anything with the Linkspartei since no one is interested in joining with them. The first two options are unlikely, since the candidate of the FDP(Yellow) Guido Westerwelle has categorically ruled out a coalition with the Greens (Green) and the SPD (Red). This makes a coalition between the SPD and CDU (Black) most likely. I have no idea who will lead such a coalition. The fact that the SPD might have less seats than the CDU doesn't mean that they wouldn't be the ones providing the chancellor. And I'm pretty sure Merkel wouldn't have any leading position if that was the result of the coalition.
This doesn't mean that Merkel as chancellor is unlikely. It's just slightly more likely than any of the other unlikely options.

Thanks Laerod. I'm hoping you can keep me appraised as to what is going on over there. I"m curious as to who the new chancellor is going to be.

Thanks Laerod. I'm hoping you can keep me appraised as to what is going on over there. I"m curious as to who the new chancellor is going to be.Me too. :D

Thing is, nothing is decided yet. There was a candidate from the Neo-nazi NPD that died, and now her voting district hasn't been included in the elections. They're going to get to vote on Wednesday, or even later, and that can still melt the 3 seat lead the CDU has in Parliament to a perfect tie.

That wouldn't have saved Germany. And even if it would, you wouldn't have gotten many votes...

Oh it would work but I know it wouldn't be too popular. Like Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo. He turned around and did fiscal austerity and reforms similiar to the ones I stated. Unfortunately his approval ratings are around 8%.

Me too. :D

Hey,

We agree on something at least :D

My policies:

1) Reduce size of state welfare system

2) Make it easier for businesses to hire and fire

3) Lower income taxes

4) Reduce corporate taxes

5) Reduce environmental restrictions

Schroder is a failure of a leader. He's all hot air, and he has fallen short in just about everything.. especially with relation to reforms

Germany has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the world. It's lower than the US's or the UK's for example. (In fact, that is part of the problem).

Oh it would work but I know it wouldn't be too popular. Like Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo. He turned around and did fiscal austerity and reforms similiar to the ones I stated. Unfortunately his approval ratings are around 8%.You forget certain factors like the EU, Euro, and deficit. Lowering taxes the way you would want to and reducing the environmental tax (which I assume you'd like to do) would result in a larger deficit than the current government has managed. This would violate the EU stability pact and result in a "fine" from the EU.

Germany has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the world. It's lower than the US's or the UK's for example. (In fact, that is part of the problem).

Facts?

You forget certain factors like the EU, Euro, and deficit. Lowering taxes the way you would want to and reducing the environmental tax (which I assume you'd like to do) would result in a larger deficit than the current government has managed. This would violate the EU stability pact and result in a "fine" from the EU.

Well screw the EU. There stability pact has provided nothing but recession for Europe.

Facts?

The german corporate income tax rate is 25%, the US rate is 34% for earnings over $100,000, rising to 38% at over 15,000,000, and falling back to 35% for the top band.

The german corporate income tax rate is 25%, the US rate is 34% for earnings over $100,000, rising to 38% at over 15,000,000, and falling back to 35% for the top band.

Citation? I'm not going to take your word for it.

1) Reduce size of state welfare system
Obviously. Germany is just as broke as the US is, budget-wise. But remember the HARTZ IV reforms, which were basically a start into that direction, requiring unemployed to work harder and to find a job.
There were huge demonstrations against it, and the SPD was shocked through and though. The Lefties come from that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept
http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/agenda_2010__the_reform_packag.html

2) Make it easier for businesses to hire and fire
True. But remember that this too was begun by the Schröder Government, but killed off after huge threats by unions and others. It seems unlikely that you could have achieved more in his position, or in any other position other than a dictatorial one.

3) Lower income taxes
Bah.
a) Germany can't afford it, even less so perhaps than the US.
b) It was done: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp, and there were plans to cut them further if possible.

4) Reduce corporate taxes
Was done, now at 25%. Compare to the US with 35%.

5) Reduce environmental restrictions
??? And what is that going to do?
Plus it's done by the EU. It is unlikely that Germany alone could achieve anything in the EU.

Schroder is a failure of a leader. He's all hot air, and he has fallen short in just about everything.. especially with relation to reforms
What are you basing that on though? Or is this just about Iraq again?

Citation? I'm not going to take your word for it.

German Tax Rates (http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/business/taxes/german_tax_rates.html)

If you don't know the US corporate tax rate you shouldn't be making these sweeping statements.

Well screw the EU. There stability pact has provided nothing but recession for Europe.Guess who's responsible for that stability pact. :p

True. But remember that this too was begun by the Schröder Government, but killed off after huge threats by unions and others. It seems unlikely that you could have achieved more in his position, or in any other position other than a dictatorial one.

So it never quite happened? Unions need to be weakened, like they are in the US (representing only 13-15% of workers).

Bah.
a) Germany can't afford it, even less so perhaps than the US.
b) It was done: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp, and there were plans to cut them further if possible.

They can afford it if they slash the government budget.

Was done, now at 25%. Compare to the US with 35%.

Citations?


What are you basing that on though? Or is this just about Iraq again?

I never brought up Iraq.

So it never quite happened? Unions need to be weakened, like they are in the US (representing only 13-15% of workers).
That won't happen in Germany. In fact, the unions are an important part of German political society and both parties were trying to gain their support.They can afford it if they slash the government budget. Where?

That won't happen in Germany. In fact, the unions are an important part of German political society and both parties were trying to gain their support.Where?

Unions need to be reduced and can be. Tell me... is it easy for companies to fire workers in Germany? Can they downsize when needed?

So it never quite happened? Unions need to be weakened, like they are in the US (representing only 13-15% of workers).
That's not Politics, that's ideology and has nothing to do with actually solving problems on the ground.
Moreso it ain't gonna happen immediatly, unless you simply outlaw unions, which is deeply undemocratic.
Additionally, that kind of reform was one of the things Schröder meant to get a mandate for with these elections (hypothetically). The stronger the Government's position, the less it is going to have to listen to groups like the unions.

They can afford it if they slash the government budget.
See above. The Stability Pact is one factor, and another one is indeed that we'd like our country to go into the direction of Scandinavia rather than the US.

Citations?
Again, see above. Or perhaps JUST LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED!!!

I never brought up Iraq.
I just thought it might be the underlying reason for your utter hatred for the man...

let's Go Die Linke.pds! Sozial Ist Gerecht, Nein Zu Sozial Piraten Deutschland, Nein Zu Capital Demontage Union!

See above. The Stability Pact is one factor, and another one is indeed that we'd like our country to go into the direction of Scandinavia rather than the US.

Very bad move. The US ensures greater financial security and greater economic growth.

Again, see above. Or perhaps JUST LOOK AT THE LINK I PROVIDED!!!


I did that post after that link.

I just thought it might be the underlying reason for your utter hatred for the man...

Who said I hated him? I just don't like th direction he has taken the country. But heck not my country... you guys will get a very weak government either way.

Unions need to be reduced and can be. Tell me... is it easy for companies to fire workers in Germany? Can they downsize when needed?
Let's see whether we can find it in English....
http://www.bmwa.bund.de/Navigation/Service/Englisch/labour.html
Check this...the overview PDF is pretty good.

Unions need to be reduced and can be. Tell me... is it easy for companies to fire workers in Germany? Can they downsize when needed?
Companies? Hell yeah. They've been laying off wherever they want to. The Unions haven't put up much of a fight there, only when complete closures were planned.
I have a feeling that you're just plain biased towards unions. There hasn't been any indication that unions need to be reduced here. The role of unions is completely different from the one they have in the US anyway. I suggest you find out about the pretty much unique German system before spreading anti union propaganda.
And you failed to answer the "Where" question.

let's Go Die Linke.pds! Sozial Ist Gerecht, Nein Zu Sozial Piraten Deutschland, Nein Zu Capital Demontage Union!Nee, lieber nicht...

Companies? Hell yeah. They've been laying off wherever they want to. The Unions haven't put up much of a fight there, only when complete closures were planned.
I have a feeling that you're just plain biased towards unions. There hasn't been any indication that unions need to be reduced here. The role of unions is completely different from the one they have in the US anyway. I suggest you find out about the pretty much unique German system before spreading anti union propaganda.
And you failed to answer the "Where" question.

Well your country. The government should reform or shrivel away.

Very bad move. The US ensures greater financial security and greater economic growth.
I suggest you look at the Scandinavian Economies. It's quite perplexing how they seem to defy all economic rules of thumb, keeping tax rates at near 50% yet having high demand, keeping worker's rights important, yet attracting investment and all the while getting economic growth stats similar or better than the US...

Well your country. The government should reform or shrivel away.If you have nothing to contribute to a proper discussion then just don't.

I suggest you look at the Scandinavian Economies. It's quite perplexing how they seem to defy all economic rules of thumb, keeping tax rates at near 50% yet having high demand, keeping worker's rights important, yet attracting investment and all the while getting economic growth stats similar or better than the US...

That's contradicting. Their financial systems are in trouble as there is an influx of immigrants. Furthermore, I want to keep my money. Lets face it, the US is a better country economically. Economic growth stats are better in the US.

That won't happen in Germany. In fact, the unions are an important part of German political society and both parties were trying to gain their support.Where?

Actually, unions were a powerful force in our electorate until they began to get to political then people started to ignore them.

Unions are both a blessing and a curse.

Actually, unions were a powerful force in our electorate until they began to get to political then people started to ignore them.

Unions are both a blessing and a curse.

They were also hijacked by the mafia in this country.. and became extremely corrupt..

Take this city of LA.. don't get me started wth the UTA (the union of workers in the bus system). They stated they managed to "lose" money for their health care coverage... yeah right.

Unions are both a blessing and a curse.That's a healthy attitude. :)

The thing is, you can't really compare American unions to the German ones, since it seems more of a confrontation in America than here. Companies here have an incredible amount of interweaving of unions when it comes to the top levels of the decision-making process. And currently, the unions are putting up with a lot in the name of making Germany more competitive (while we've been having plenty of scandals where CEOs increased their paychecks shortly after firing a lot of people).

That's contradicting. Their financial systems are in trouble as there is an influx of immigrants. Furthermore, I want to keep my money. Lets face it, the US is a better country economically. Economic growth stats are better in the US.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html

Check the extensive economic stats there, then compare to
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Agreed, GDP per capita is better in the US, but was it you that once applauded "GDP=Grossly Deceptive Pointer"? Growth Rates are fairly similar, unemployment too...yet worker's rights are protected, as are the poor and the unemployed. The environment is better protected in Scandinavia, and if I had the choice, I'd rather live there than in the US.

Oh, and compare with the relatively more free-market Finland - with an unemployment rate of 8.9%.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html

And where are the citations for your immigrant statement? I would think Scandinavia can cope very well with the immigrants they get, as immigrants are a valuable resource in the labour market....

Agreed, GDP per capita is better in the US, but was it you that once applauded "GDP=Grossly Deceptive Pointer"?

No. I never said that.



Growth Rates are fairly similar, unemployment too...yet worker's rights are protected, as are the poor and the unemployed. The environment is better protected in Scandinavia, and if I had the choice, I'd rather live there than in the US.

I much rather live in a place where I can keep my money. :)


Oh, and compare with the relatively more free-market Finland - with an unemployment rate of 8.9%.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html

And compare that to Singapore - 3.4% unemployment.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html#Econ

It was ranked as one of the freest economic systems in the world (not politically, a bit authoritarian).

That's a healthy attitude. :)

The thing is, you can't really compare American unions to the German ones, since it seems more of a confrontation in America than here. Companies here have an incredible amount of interweaving of unions when it comes to the top levels of the decision-making process. And currently, the unions are putting up with a lot in the name of making Germany more competitive (while we've been having plenty of scandals where CEOs increased their paychecks shortly after firing a lot of people).

My understanding is that the entire theory of corporate governance is different in Germany though. In the US only the stockholders (owners) have representation at the board level, and managements only duty is to them.

Naturally, this leads to a more confrontational approach.

I much rather live in a place where I can keep my money. :)What exactly is that supposed to mean? Do you not pay taxes what so ever?

What exactly is that supposed to mean? Do you not pay taxes what so ever?

Well keep most of my money. I'm not an Eddie Antar.

Well keep most of my money. I'm not an Eddie Antar.Whereas if you get sick in those countries, you won't lose your money, since you've been paying for healthcare the whole time. That means you won't have to afford expensive treatments and thus get to keep your money. Being sick in the US can take away much more of your precious money than it is likely to do in Scandinavia.

Whereas if you get sick in those countries, you won't lose your money, since you've been paying for healthcare the whole time. That means you won't have to afford expensive treatments and thus get to keep your money. Being sick in the US can take away much more of your precious money than it is likely to do in Scandinavia.

I prefer private healthcare. Besides I think a lot of people come to this country because our healthcare system is often moreso invested in. We don't have long wait times like they do with ridiculous socialised healthcare. Rather, it may take longer to get medicine in Scandinavia because of backlog.

Whereas if you get sick in those countries, you won't lose your money, since you've been paying for healthcare the whole time. That means you won't have to afford expensive treatments and thus get to keep your money. Being sick in the US can take away much more of your precious money than it is likely to do in Scandinavia.


Unless you have healthcare. This seems to be a nice little myth about the US and healthcare. We've got one of the best medical systems in the world. It just depends on your level of healthcare. I've got a nice plan from GHI that keeps me covered and pays for pretty much everything and anything that can arise and is of critical medical importance.

As for the German election..Schroder reminds me another German..who keeps commanding his troops even though he's defeated..and keeps trying to claim victory in defeat..wonder who..hmm..

I'll have to give Schroder credit though..it takes man with some pretty big cajones to claim victory simply because your party wasnt beaten nearly as bad as people expected it to be..oh sure your coalition is no longer in power..oh sure your party was handed another defeat at the polls, but that doesnt mean anything because the other party didnt do as well as everyone expected..even though they did better than you....heck Schroder didnt even get a Phyrric victory out of this. The Green party also did worse at the polls, while the CDU's most likely partner for a coalition government did the best its ever done in an election...in the end I think what will happen is a minority government run by the CDU as per German election laws. Unless Schroder decides to try and bring the Left party into the mix..something which he ruled out already..or tries a cross coalition with the CDU..another thing which he's ruled out already..or a coalition with the Free Democrats or Free Market, or whatever that other party thats close kin with the CDU party is, something which they've already ruled out..I'll tell ya one thing..the elections werent even over and a lot of bridges were burned. Its going to take a lot for any coalition government to form.

I prefer private healthcare. Besides I think a lot of people come to this country because our healthcare system is often moreso invested in. We don't have long wait times like they do with ridiculous socialised healthcare. Rather, it may take longer to get medicine in Scandinavia because of backlog.
While as in the US your only problem you face is that if you don't have the money for the treatment/medicaton you need your dicked, obviously the beter option. :rolleyes:

I prefer private healthcare. Besides I think a lot of people come to this country because our healthcare system is often moreso invested in. We don't have long wait times like they do with ridiculous socialised healthcare. Rather, it may take longer to get medicine in Scandinavia because of backlog.Um... Just because a country has a public healthcare system doesn't mean there's no private system. You have a choice in Scandinavia and Germany between the two, so a preference for the latter shouldn't really keep you from moving to a Scandinavian country. And before you point it out, the Germans that get private healthcare tend to get treatment faster.

Um... Just because a country has a public healthcare system doesn't mean there's no private system. You have a choice in Scandinavia and Germany between the two, so a preference for the latter shouldn't really keep you from moving to a Scandinavian country. And before you point it out, the Germans that get private healthcare tend to get treatment faster.

I know people in Europe who come to the US for treatment because our system is a bit better. Now I'm not saying it is perfect, far from it.. but it is better.

Unless you have healthcare. This seems to be a nice little myth about the US and healthcare. We've got one of the best medical systems in the world. It just depends on your level of healthcare. I've got a nice plan from GHI that keeps me covered and pays for pretty much everything and anything that can arise and is of critical medical importance. Out of curiosity, what does that level of healthcare depend on?

As for the German election..Schroder reminds me another German..who keeps commanding his troops even though he's defeated..and keeps trying to claim victory in defeat..wonder who..hmm..Stoiber never commanded any troops...

I'll have to give Schroder credit though..it takes man with some pretty big cajones to claim victory simply because your party wasnt beaten nearly as bad as people expected it to be..oh sure your coalition is no longer in power..oh sure your party was handed another defeat at the polls, but that doesnt mean anything because the other party didnt do as well as everyone expected..even though they did better than you....heck Schroder didnt even get a Phyrric victory out of this. The Green party also did worse at the polls, while the CDU's most likely partner for a coalition government did the best its ever done in an election...in the end I think what will happen is a minority government run by the CDU as per German election laws. Unless Schroder decides to try and bring the Left party into the mix..something which he ruled out already..or tries a cross coalition with the CDU..another thing which he's ruled out already..or a coalition with the Free Democrats or Free Market, or whatever that other party thats close kin with the CDU party is, something which they've already ruled out..I'll tell ya one thing..the elections werent even over and a lot of bridges were burned. Its going to take a lot for any coalition government to form.There's a few misconceptions in this. I suggest looking at the pictures in one of the links that Leonstein provided. The SPD candidates and followers are smiling, laughing, partying, while the ones from the CDU have the most sullen faces since they found out they'd actually lost the last election. Schröder won.
In fact, the election isn't even over yet. There's a voting district in Dresden that hasn't voted yet due to the provisions that German voting law has for the death of a candidate. The results could even change the current 3 seat lead of the CDU into a TIE.
As for the Green party, 0.5 % less isn't much of a "worse". It's an incredibly stable result, considering the losses of the bigger parties.
As for minority governments: There won't be a government without a coalition. The CDU doesn't have enough seats to put forth a government. They need at least half of the parliament to get it passed, and more than half currently don't seem willing to let them get away with a minority government.

I know people in Europe who come to the US for treatment because our system is a bit better. Now I'm not saying it is perfect, far from it.. but it is better.All the people I know that move to the states from here either make sure their kids had dental care taken care of here or regret not having done so, since it's a heck of a lot cheaper here.

Out of curiosity, what does that level of healthcare depend on?

How much one can afford to put into health insurance and such.

Stoiber never commanded any troops....
I was alluding more toward Hitler and the fall of Berlin.


There's a few misconceptions in this. I suggest looking at the pictures in one of the links that Leonstein provided. The SPD candidates and followers are smiling, laughing, partying, while the ones from the CDU have the most sullen faces since they found out they'd actually lost the last election. Schröder won.
In fact, the election isn't even over yet. There's a voting district in Dresden that hasn't voted yet due to the provisions that German voting law has for the death of a candidate. The results could even change the current 3 seat lead of the CDU into a TIE.
As for the Green party, 0.5 % less isn't much of a "worse". It's an incredibly stable result, considering the losses of the bigger parties.
As for minority governments: There won't be a government without a coalition. The CDU doesn't have enough seats to put forth a government. They need at least half of the parliament to get it passed, and more than half currently don't seem willing to let them get away with a minority government.

Eh Dresden has been a CDU stronghold since the 90s. Schroders party has been losing ground for the past couple of years. I doubt they're going to make a siginificant dent in that district.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/09/news/germany.php

I suggest you look at the Scandinavian Economies. It's quite perplexing how they seem to defy all economic rules of thumb, keeping tax rates at near 50% yet having high demand, keeping worker's rights important, yet attracting investment and all the while getting economic growth stats similar or better than the US...

Uh, maybe *not*! ^_^;

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001843.php

This one has the meat of the matter:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

It should probably be noted that this isn't anything new...

http://instapundit.com/archives/003564.php

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/000536.php

One could argue that Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag approached their work with a conservative bias but I've yet to see anyone prove their analysis wrong. If the best that Sweden can hope for is to be compared to Arkansas or Mississippi then I'm not so sure that their economic growth stats are necessarily "similar to or better than the U.S." *as a whole*.

I was alluding more toward Hitler and the fall of Berlin.I was aware of that. I didn't want to tell you at first how bad that allusion was though (no one should be throwing allusions involving Hitler around).



Eh Dresden has been a CDU stronghold since the 90s. Schroders party has been losing ground for the past couple of years. I doubt they're going to make a siginificant dent in that district.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/09/news/germany.phpI haven't been saying what "will" happen, but what "could" happen. Strongholds don't mean much anymore these days...

Anyway, you haven't answered my healthcare question. I take it that means that Psyker's statements were correct?

Uh, maybe *not*! ^_^;

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001843.php

This one has the meat of the matter:

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

It should probably be noted that this isn't anything new...

http://instapundit.com/archives/003564.php

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/000536.php

One could argue that Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag approached their work with a conservative bias but I've yet to see anyone prove their analysis wrong. If the best that Sweden can hope for is to be compared to Arkansas or Mississippi then I'm not so sure that their economic growth stats are necessarily "similar to or better than the U.S." *as a whole*.Hm... you do note that the entire assumption that Europe is poorer than most of the US is based entirely on the GDP and not living conditions, or other more relevant indicators?

I was aware of that. I didn't want to tell you at first how bad that allusion was though (no one should be throwing allusions involving Hitler around).



I haven't been saying what "will" happen, but what "could" happen. Strongholds don't mean much anymore these days...

Anyway, you haven't answered my healthcare question. I take it that means that Psyker's statements were correct?


Well since Psyker answer I figured it was delt with, but paying for private healthcare is just one way. Some jobs offer healthcare. If you work for any government agency on any level you get healthcare. Some states afford low cost health care to the poor and disadvantaged. NY state gives free healthcare to all children. Its a state by state basis. There is no national standard for healthcare. So I wont bore you with information on 50 different states.

Well since Psyker answer I figured it was delt with, but paying for private healthcare is just one way. Some jobs offer healthcare. If you work for any government agency on any level you get healthcare. Some states afford low cost health care to the poor and disadvantaged. NY state gives free healthcare to all children. Its a state by state basis. There is no national standard for healthcare. So I wont bore you with information on 50 different states.This basically affirms my suspicions. It means that poor, jobless people may not be able to afford any form of healthcare in some parts of the US, whereas most European welfare states allow for those parts of society to be covered.
I can understand that it's hard to formulate a concise statement on healthcare if it can vary that much. Those variations are one of the reasons why I feel it should be the job of the government to take care of it.

This basically affirms my suspicions. It means that poor, jobless people may not be able to afford any form of healthcare in some parts of the US, whereas most European welfare states allow for those parts of society to be covered.
I can understand that it's hard to formulate a concise statement on healthcare if it can vary that much. Those variations are one of the reasons why I feel it should be the job of the government to take care of it.

I tend to disagree. There are reasons why doctors leave European countries to come to the US to practice. The private healthcare system tends to be more lucrative. The standard of medicine is higher. Sure more people can get treatment but the quality of the treatment wouldnt be as high as a public hospital in the US. As for the poor and the jobless not being able to afford any form of healthcare, there are government programs which target the poor and the jobless, sometimes people just dont want to. Othertimes they dont know about it. I for one, dont agree with the idea that its the governments job to provide healthcare. And the majority of Americans happen to agree with me as well. We view the Welfare State as not something to emulate in the US.

This is what I love about Germany's multi-party system. It keeps democracy from becomming evil vs wannabe evil and stops any one party from being able to waltz about doing whatever they want.

I tend to disagree. There are reasons why doctors leave European countries to come to the US to practice. The private healthcare system tends to be more lucrative. The standard of medicine is higher. Sure more people can get treatment but the quality of the treatment wouldnt be as high as a public hospital in the US. As for the poor and the jobless not being able to afford any form of healthcare, there are government programs which target the poor and the jobless, sometimes people just dont want to. Othertimes they dont know about it. I for one, dont agree with the idea that its the governments job to provide healthcare. And the majority of Americans happen to agree with me as well. We view the Welfare State as not something to emulate in the US.Nah, doctors leave mainly because of money and working hours. There most certainly is a problem with the lack of pay for a lot of work in Germany that is driving doctors to Norway and Great Britain.
The way the system sounds like in the states, however, it's a system that gives you treatment if you can afford it, and I think that's a gross neglect of human rights on behalf of a government. Most Germans agree with me, as we've seen in the elections.

That is correct ladies and gentlemen,

After seven years, Schroeder has been defeated in the German election. However, Merkel did not receive a clear cut mandate to govern and Schroeder is saying that he should head the next German government.

According to what I've been reading, do to the closeness of the vote the next government could be weaker due to the difficulty of forming a coalition.

What is your thoughts, especially from the Germans.

Merkel Tops Schroeder in German Elections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169725,00.html)
Germany's Schroeder vows to find winning pact (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/18/germany.election/index.htm)

Interesting about all this is, that Schroeder says that he will be chancellor although his party has lost the elections and the former coalition of SPD and Greens will not have a majority in the Bundestag.

On the other hand a coalition of Conservatives (CDU/CSU) and Liberals (FDP) won´t get a majority either. But with the Conservatives as the strongest faction it is up to them to form a government.
Personally I think that Conservatives will try to avoid a "Great Coalition" (a coalition of SPD and CDU/CSU) as in this constellation they would have Schröder demanding to be chancellor. A great coalition is a constellation which is always possible as it just formed out of the two big partys, but it is not popular.
The other possibility for Schröder to become Chancellor would be to form a so called "Traffic-Light-Coalition" formed out of the Reds (Schröder´s SPD), Yellows (Liberal FDP) and Greens. But the Liberals won´t do it; this is what they expressively said before the elections; they won´t support the Red-Green Coalition which has governed the country for the last seven years and which has failed to get a majority now.

So the most likely coalition would be the so called "Jamaica-Coalition" formed out of the Blacks (Merkel´s Conservative CDU), the Yellows (FDP) and Greens. The Liberals have said, they won´t work together with the Greens. But they have got their best result since the German reunion in 1990 (about 10%) and it would be kind of a waste to go into opposition with a result like this. So everything depends on the FDP, they will be the party which decides who will be chancellor. They definitely won´t do the Traffic Light Coalition which would mean that Schroeder will be Chancellor. If they decide to support the Jamaica-Coalition, Merkel will be Chancellor.
If they refuse to do so, CDU/CSU and SPD would be forced to form a coalition, and this would most likely mean that Schröder will be chancellor, although his SPD has got less votes than Merkel´s CDU... but the difference between CDU/CSU and SPD is just about 1% which would be about three seats in the Bundestag. The Great Coalition would be a coalition of two even factions, which I a m afraid would not work.

Another arithmetical possibility would be the continuation of the former Red-Green coalition with support by the Left Party (Former Socialists of the German Democratic Republic). But this is something the SPD refused to do. The Left Party is not said to be a democratic party and it is a taboo for the democratic partys to work together with them, although the SPD already has formed coalitions with them in two out of 16 regional governments like Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, and the SPD has led a minority government in Saxony-Anhalt with support by the Left Party in the 1990s.

But a continuation of the Red-Green coalition with support by the Left Party would not make sense at all and it would totally go against the people´s will, as in fact, the Red-Green coalition has clearly lost its majority.

From the news link:

Schroeder touted the country's role as a European leader and counterbalance to America, while Merkel pledged to reform the economy and strengthen relations with Washington.

Ever checked the state of your economy, Herr Schroeder? It's really pitiful when someone runs strictly on a platform directed towards sentiments against a foriegn leader who really has no effect on Germany, while his own country lingers pitifully behind even the standard EU growth rates. And he actually picks up votes doing it. Good thing at least 42% of you thought capitalism and friendship with America were worth a shot ;) .

I suggest you look at the Scandinavian Economies. It's quite perplexing how they seem to defy all economic rules of thumb, keeping tax rates at near 50% yet having high demand, keeping worker's rights important, yet attracting investment and all the while getting economic growth stats similar or better than the US...

Check out Timbro's site on that one and some of their excellent statistics and analysis. The US beats almost all European nations in growth rates pretty solidly, with the only exceptions coming close being ones like Ireland, parts of Eastern Europe, and perhaps the UK. You refer to the supposed magic these nations worked decades ago.

<snip>Most of what you've said has already been covered in detail in this thread, except that I've never heard of a "Jamaika Koalition". It's been called a "Schwampel".

Hm... you do note that the entire assumption that Europe is poorer than most of the US is based entirely on the GDP and not living conditions, or other more relevant indicators?

My observations have always been that the relationship between GDP and living conditions is not a weak one. For example, the first Instapundit link I cited alluded to the fact that Sweden has a higher crime rate than most of the US states. However I also admit to being inclined to agree with Stephan Green when he writes:

"But if we go that route, let's also figure that everything from DVDs to houses are both cheaper and more widely available in Mississippi. Sweden has a statistical advantage both in price and quality of fresh herring, but that's of obviously limited appeal.

Also, Mississippi residents are far more likely to have a job."

http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/002486.php#002486

Or to put it another way, if nation A's GDP is less than B's *and* A's government takes a higher percentage of it *and* A's crime rate (Which is also an informal "tax" upon the average citizen even if it doesn't translate into government revenue) is *also* higher then I doubt that the citizens of Nation A are going to necessarily have as good a living standard as Nation B either even when the "intangibles" *are* factored in. I'll grant that "intangibles" are tricky to measure by their very nature. But I'm also inclined to suspect that by their very nature most of those even out wherever you go. Also admittedly, these things are never static of course but I suspect that there's nothing in those stats to indicate a sacrifice of living standards of today for a better living standard tomorrow either that an "up and comer" would have either.

From the news link:
Ever checked the state of your economy, Herr Schroeder? It's really pitiful when someone runs strictly on a platform directed towards sentiments against a foriegn leader who really has no effect on Germany, while his own country lingers pitifully behind even the standard EU growth rates. And he actually picks up votes doing it. Good thing at least 42% of you thought capitalism and friendship with America were worth a shot ;) .Which is exactly why Faux News isn't a reliable source. That specific issue had very little to do with the election campaigns AT ALL. The economy was what everyone was talking about, not German-American relations as Faux News would like you to believe.

"Also, Mississippi residents are far more likely to have a job."This is a good example where to hack at a one-sided approach. Mississippi unemployed probably do a heck of a lot worse than Swedish unemployed.

This is a good example where to hack at a one-sided approach. Mississippi unemployed probably do a heck of a lot worse than Swedish unemployed.

But is that a bad thing? o_O

But is that a bad thing? o_OYup. The Neo-Calvinist approach of "If they don't have a job it's God's will/they're too lazy to get one" is rather misguided.

*sigh* with my understanding of Germanys current financial system im worried that Germany just cant keep going at the rate they are, basic economics says a governement needs to spend less than you earn to grow economically, Germanys social welfare is fatastic, your taxes are low, this doesnt work!

i think that the Germans need to really take a look at whos going to be incharge of the economy, right now you need to decrease spending and increase taxes, its not nice but necessary to save Germany from nose-driving into financial crisis,

for that you need a center right (Capitalist) party, any one with a basic economic knowledge knows that, or any one who owns a business, or even had a lemonade stand as a kid!

God help Germany, otherwise the IMF eventually will...

p.s. however generally speaking the Germans are a very intellegent bunch, htey have a nack of figuring things out before it gets to a crisis

p.p.s and it would be really really bad for the EU if Germany fell into an economic crisis right now, altho the innovation spreading from it would be interesting, but no one has the money to bail them right now, the US is spending on War and Katrinas aftermath, Aus, NZ ect dont have enough spare $$$ combined to save Europe, the rest of the world probably wont bother, so please let Germany keep together, what you really need right now, is a fantastic macro-economist, goodluck!

*sigh* with my understanding of Germanys current financial system im worried that Germany just cant keep going at the rate they are, basic economics says a governement needs to spend less than you earn to grow economically, Germanys social welfare is fatastic, your taxes are low, this doesnt work!

i think that the Germans need to really take a look at whos going to be incharge of the economy, right now you need to decrease spending and increase taxes, its not nice but necessary to save Germany from nose-driving into financial crisis,

for that you need a center right (Capitalist) party, any one with a basic economic knowledge knows that, or any one who owns a business, or even had a lemonade stand as a kid!

God help Germany, otherwise the IMF eventually will...

p.s. however generally speaking the Germans are a very intellegent bunch, htey have a nack of figuring things out before it gets to a crisis

p.p.s and it would be really really bad for the EU if Germany fell into an economic crisis right now, altho the innovation spreading from it would be interesting, but no one has the money to bail them right now, the US is spending on War and Katrinas aftermath, Aus, NZ ect dont have enough spare $$$ combined to save Europe, the rest of the world probably wont bother, so please let Germany keep together, what you really need right now, is a fantastic macro-economist, goodluck!

They export too much at a loss. They should cut back on exports that loose money, it would go a long way to fixing the anemic growth.

*sigh* with my understanding of Germanys current financial system im worried that Germany just cant keep going at the rate they are, basic economics says a governement needs to spend less than you earn to grow economically, Germanys social welfare is fatastic, your taxes are low, this doesnt work! If compared to those of Norway, yes, German taxes are low.

i think that the Germans need to really take a look at whos going to be incharge of the economy, right now you need to decrease spending and increase taxes, its not nice but necessary to save Germany from nose-driving into financial crisis,

for that you need a center right (Capitalist) party, any one with a basic economic knowledge knows that, or any one who owns a business, or even had a lemonade stand as a kid!Everyone agrees on the cutback spending. The question is where and the "Capitalist" party has been blocking government attempts at reducing spending.

God help Germany, otherwise the IMF eventually will... Heh, list the number of countries that the IMF has helped next to the number of countries it hasn't (by helped I mean improved).

They export too much at a loss. They should cut back on exports that loose money, it would go a long way to fixing the anemic growth.Exports are what have kept Germany from entering a recession. Exports are not the problem, it's the stagnating economy that is. The ones that could help any problems with exports are the ones that keep the dollar weak.

*sigh* with my understanding of Germanys current financial system im worried that Germany just cant keep going at the rate they are, basic economics says a governement needs to spend less than you earn to grow economically, Germanys social welfare is fatastic, your taxes are low, this doesnt work!
Not necessarily. Take a look at Canada. Our corporate taxes are dropping, and are currently lower than many states in the US. At the same time, we have okay social welfare, a positive budget, and a positive trade balance.
Our "socialist" medical system is actually having a brain gain -- more doctors are coming from the US to Canada than vice versa now.

If that were true then his party would've won the majority of the seats and they didn't. That is like me saying that people liked Bush more in 2000.
It's not like that at all. Problem is, you're thinking of this as a presidential election when it is in fact a general election.

Germany has one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the world. It's lower than the US's or the UK's for example. (In fact, that is part of the problem).
It looks increasingly like Mescatala doesn't actually know anything about Germany, but rather is just insisting that this and that must be done, with no basis other than his ideology.

Citation? I'm not going to take your word for it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Germany
The top corporate tax rate is 25 percent, but an additional 5.5 percent solidarity tax raises this rate to 26.4 percent

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Unitedstates
The top corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

Mind you, Schroeder has himself said that he would like to reduce Germany's corporate tax to compete with countries like Ireland (which has 12.5% rate).

That's contradicting. Their financial systems are in trouble as there is an influx of immigrants. Furthermore, I want to keep my money. Lets face it, the US is a better country economically. Economic growth stats are better in the US.
I don't know if you're even worth listening to when you're basing your opinions on such subjective, emotional concerns.

I much rather live in a place where I can keep my money.
That's not what we're talking about. You've proven yourself to be a little child. You can't even stay on topic. You can't even restrain from degenerating into typical right-wing ranting about taxes.

Rather, it may take longer to get medicine in Scandinavia because of backlog.
Citation?

I know people in Europe who come to the US for treatment because our system is a bit better. Now I'm not saying it is perfect, far from it.. but it is better.
Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

That is correct ladies and gentlemen,

After seven years, Schroeder has been defeated in the German election. However, Merkel did not receive a clear cut mandate to govern and Schroeder is saying that he should head the next German government.

According to what I've been reading, do to the closeness of the vote the next government could be weaker due to the difficulty of forming a coalition.

What is your thoughts, especially from the Germans.

Merkel Tops Schroeder in German Elections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169725,00.html)
Germany's Schroeder vows to find winning pact (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/18/germany.election/index.htm)

Merkel "Tops" Schroeder. Precious Fox News... ^_^ Quite a "topping" that is. Admittedly, if we had the kind of electoral laws that the US has, she'd likely be chancellor now. But that's not the only advantage of our system.

---
It's a stalemate, pretty much. The CDU (Conservatives) does not have a majority together with the FDP (Liberals), but neither does the SPD (Social Democrats) together with the Greens.
The Left Party won't make a coalition with the CDU under any circumstances, but whether they will go with the SPD is questionable at best. So the SPD has some bargaining power, but nobody actually has a solid victory.

---

It is important to note that this supposed "narrow victory" is actually an absurd defeat considering the expectations. Merkel expected a landslide mandate, but what she got wouldn't even pass as such in the US. It should also be noted that her support in her own ranks is getting quite unstable - she might not be head of the party much longer.

Here's a political compass.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/germany2005.gif

National Democrats = NPD
Free Democrats = FDP

Now, lets all pray that Westerwelle fucking leaves and that the FDP does what it's always done (Historically speaking): Suck up to the better choice. Which would be an SPD/ FDP/ Greens coalition...

Granted, I'd like to have the greens out, but... well, can't have everything.

I'll admit, it doesn't sound like a stable coalition, but FDP/ Greens to balance Münteferings slightly authoritarian tendencies, the FDP attacting the more free-market inclined greens, and... Well, it's a nice idea. Ok, dream.

PS: Just a hint, dear transoceanic neighbors: CDU != Republican-equivalent. Far from it.

PPS: YES! The two largest parties both loose. Could hardly have been better.

Even if Schröder has lost in popular vote to the CDU/CSU, it is is Merkel that appears to be the bigget loser. She has quite dramatically under performed with the CDU/CSU union even managing to lose votes compared to the last Bundestag election. She doesn't have the clear mandate she was expecting.

It may will be easier for Schröder to get the Greens and FDP working together under the SPD than for Merkel to achieve this under the CDU/CSU.

Both are in a rather tricky position if it comes to a grand coalition, as both have said they will not lead or take part in an alliance with the other biggest party...

A big mess really isn't it... just out of interest, I know the SPD has ruled out working with the Left party, but just how incompatible are the Left party and SPD's policies?

PS: Just a hint, dear transoceanic neighbors: CDU != Republican-equivalent. Far from it.Yeah, the fact that there are only two real choices in American politics has led to a melting of what would constitute several parties over here.
The Republican Party would probably be comprised of the PBC (Christian fundamentalist party), the CDU (conservatives), the CSU (it's bavarian counterpart), and maybe Zentrum.

Yeah, the fact that there are only two real choices in American politics has led to a melting of what would constitute several parties over here.
The Republican Party would probably be comprised of the PBC (Christian fundamentalist party), the CDU (conservatives), the CSU (it's bavarian counterpart), and maybe Zentrum.
Personally, if the Republicans and Democrats were applied to the Swedish political scale, and I suspect that of most other European countries, there wouldn't be much to distinguish between them. Republicans are extreme right, whilst Democrats seem to range from centre-right to right.

Personally, if the Republicans and Democrats were applied to the Swedish political scale, and I suspect that of most other European countries, there wouldn't be much to distinguish between them. Republicans are extreme right, whilst Democrats seem to range from centre-right to right.
Democrats also incorporate a lot of leftists, simply because there isn't really any other option. The Democrats Abroad tend to be really left, because of the surplus of information available to them. I was amazed to see Americans call for peace protests over here.
Thing is, the Democrats probably best compare to a grouping of the FDP with small minorities of SPD and Greens in it. And the FDP is affiliated with the CDU ever since the Greens entered the playing field.

A big mess really isn't it... just out of interest, I know the SPD has ruled out working with the Left party, but just how incompatible are the Left party and SPD's policies?'Very', given that Lafontaine and Schröder hate each others' guts.

Westerwelle on the other hand is a cocksucker (Both literally and proverbial), and I doubt that he'll have any issues forgetting what he said a week ago. Neither will FDP voters, if I'm any indication.

Granted, I still want him gone, but meh.

I was amazed to see Americans call for peace protests over here.Why? They have them plentyful on the other side of the ocean, too. It's just that there's also an opposition to the protests whereas here, there's not (Disregarding my tentative support for the Iraq conflict which resulted in my PoliSci professors having a fit XD).

That is correct ladies and gentlemen,

After seven years, Schroeder has been defeated in the German election. However, Merkel did not receive a clear cut mandate to govern and Schroeder is saying that he should head the next German government.

According to what I've been reading, do to the closeness of the vote the next government could be weaker due to the difficulty of forming a coalition.

What is your thoughts, especially from the Germans.

Merkel Tops Schroeder in German Elections (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169725,00.html)
Germany's Schroeder vows to find winning pact (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/18/germany.election/index.htm)
"Merkel" sounds like an appliance salesman from Cincinnati. Heh!

Why? They have them plentyful on the other side of the ocean, too. It's just that there's also an opposition to the protests whereas here, there's not (Disregarding my tentative support for the Iraq conflict which resulted in my PoliSci professors having a fit XD).I don't recall there being very many BEFORE the war started... ;)

-political scale-
Hehe, I think the FDP would be positively screaming right now if they saw themselves further on the "Facism" than on the "Libertarian" side...

----------------------------

As for the others and their "Sweden (and the EU) is underperforming" links:

Interesting reading, but hardly conclusive. We know that the US has a higher GDP, and that they are bound to have a higher GDP per capita as well. Not a suprise if you acknowledge how the last century went.

There have been a number of attempts made to widen our measures of welfare as a whole (including, I believe, by Sen himself), and it has been found that the strong correlation between GDP and welfare/happiness only works for comparatively low levels of GDP.

Once a certain threshold is reached, diminishing returns to more money set in, and other factors become more important, levelling happiness as a whole.
Whether or not your GDP is $40,000 or $25,000 suddenly doesn't matter quite as much anymore (there's actual empirical evidence for this, as empirical as surveys on happiness get). Also consider Hirsch's theory of Positional Goods, which make GDP per capita fairly irrelevant.

Then you also have to take into account the income distribution, which may very well affect the wellbeing in a country significantly. Furthermore there are social (and dare I say "racial") tensions that are probably weaker in Sweden than in the US.

And finally, a note on different forms of welfare systems see Goodin, Heady, Muffels and Dirvan and their book "The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" (I think it is called). A very good book that.

'Very', given that Lafontaine and Schröder hate each others' guts.

Westerwelle on the other hand is a cocksucker (Both literally and proverbial), and I doubt that he'll have any issues forgetting what he said a week ago. Neither will FDP voters, if I'm any indication.

Granted, I still want him gone, but meh.
I don't think his sexual orientation is of any importance in this discussion. :(

I don't think his sexual orientation is of any importance in this discussion. :(My opinion of him (A spineless opportunist with excessive populist tendencies, which I conveniently merged into the term 'cocksucker') might be? His sexual orientation is merely providing an inappropriately appropriate coincidence.

I would want to see a woman as chancellor, but I think that Germany does not need an 'Iron Chancellor' à la Margaret Thatcher. What Germany needs, I think, is a stiff quaff of cooperation among all parties for the common good and a serious recognition of Germany's rôle in the EU in particular and in the world in general. As Europe's leading economy, Germany must reduce unemployment without damaging her adherence to the concept of the social market economy. If Merkel tries to 'ape' the USA and their commitment to unbridled capitalism (read corporation plutocracy), then Germany and all Europe will have lost a great opportunity.

My opinion of him (A spineless opportunist with excessive populist tendencies, which I conveniently merged into the term 'cocksucker') might be? His sexual orientation is merely providing an inappropriately appropriate coincidence.
Of course is your opinion about Westerwelle important. I even share your point of view. I just think mocking a persons sexuality is a mean thing to do, but anyway it's just my opinion and so not really relevant.

And I do ask that you refrain from any "the voters screwed up there" comments. Voters never screw up, only parties do.Couldn't agree more.

Yup. The Neo-Calvinist approach of "If they don't have a job it's God's will/they're too lazy to get one" is rather misguided.

Thank you for trying to play telepath but trying to write the dialogue for the other side in a debate is often a bad idea. :p You said "Mississippi unemployed *probably* do a heck of a lot worse than Swedish unemployed." (Emphasis added). Since unemployment in America tends to temporary I'm not sure it's as much of an issue as it is in economies where unemployment is for life. Social mobility matters.

Since unemployment in America tends to temporary I'm not sure it's as much of an issue as it is in economies where unemployment is for life. Social mobility matters.
Do you have any reasonable studies comparing Sweden to the US on that?
And I mean academic, neutral ones.

Thank you for trying to play telepath but trying to write the dialogue for the other side in a debate is often a bad idea. :p You said "Mississippi unemployed *probably* do a heck of a lot worse than Swedish unemployed." (Emphasis added). Since unemployment in America tends to temporary I'm not sure it's as much of an issue as it is in economies where unemployment is for life. Social mobility matters.You know with all due respect, but thinking Sweden is worse off than Mississippi according to some handpicked criteria is really stupid.

For those who think Merkel will lower taxes, please take a look at this. (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1033306.php)