Schroeder and Hartz IV
Watson & Parisi
braucht' ('What the East really needs'):
http://www.zeit.de/2004/36/01______Leiter_2fSchmidt
A quotation out of the middle of the article:
"... Aber weder Kanzler Kohl und seine schwarz-gelbe Koalition noch Kanzler
Schröder und seine rot-grüne Koalition haben bis zum Frühjahr 2003 auch nur
einen einzigen wesentlichen Teil von Herzogs Vorschlägen aufgegriffen.
Erstmalig hat Kanzler Schröder am 14. März 2003 einen positiven Anfang
gemacht. Der Kanzler hat verstanden: Das Wohlergehen des Vaterlandes muss
höher stehen als das der eigenen Partei. Hut ab vor seiner Standfestigkeit!
..."
"... But neither Chancellor Kohl and his black-yellow coalition nor
Chancellor Schroeder and his red-green coalition followed up on even a
single one of Herzog's suggestions until early in 2003. Only on 14 March
2003 did Chancellor Schroeder make a positive beginning. The chancellor
understood: The welfare of the Fatherland must take precedence over that of
his own party. Hats off to his steadfastness! ..."
The main thrust of the article concerns Aufbau Ost, but for now I'm more
interested in his comments about Hartz IV. Schmidt argues that Hartz IV is
only the beginning of a series of reforms that are absolutely necessary in
order to make the German social system sustainable, including pensions and
health care. He says the reforms should have been started in 1996, and to
emphasize the reality he points out that in only a few decades more than
half of all living Germans will be over the age of 60. He cautions the
German people against listening to opportunists, demagogues and "economic
faith healers" ("ökonomische Wunderheiler") who oppose the reforms for their
own reasons - Lafontaine among them.
With all that said, as a foreigner I also would like once again to express
my admiration for Gerhard Schroeder and his steadfastness. I doubt that we
have any politician in the US at the national level who would dare to put
the long range good of his country so directly in conflict with his own
popularity and that of his party. I know that incumbent politicians don't
tend to be very popular, but judging from the German press it seems that
almost no one inside Germany recognizes that Schroeder is sacrificing
himself and his party for the good of his country! The reforms would be
unpopular (to put it mildly) no matter who carried them out, as we see also
in France, and wouldn't the opposition most likely be even more harsh than
the SPD if they were in charge? So although it's none of my business, it is
my wish that Schroeder could enjoy a little more respect inside Germany. As
I have said before, if the German people do eventually boot him out of
office, maybe we could alter the US constitution so he could campaign for
the US presidency. He would definitely get my vote.
Robert.
Paul
"Watson & Parisi" <ni...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:412d1e75$0$19709$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
According to this article in the Economist about Hartz IV
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3092887 it's a complex
situation and fraught with many potential problems.
Might be of interest to those who don't read German.
Paul
thomsen
> An article by Helmut Schmidt, with the title 'Was der Osten wirklich
> braucht' ('What the East really needs'):
>
> http://www.zeit.de/2004/36/01______Leiter_2fSchmidt
>
> The main thrust of the article concerns Aufbau Ost, but for now I'm
Hello,
after so many dicussion about irrelevant american "befindlichkeiten"
(maybe: oversensitiveness?) eventually something about germany for a
change - great!
As to the subject - well I do not agree with you nor with Schmidt
as to Schroeder. The problem is there is too few "Angebot" and too
much "Nachfrage" in the present Schroeder/Clement social reforms.
No offer of jobs, but a lot of pressure on the jobless. That won't
work - and is rightly understood as a policy that only encourages
the capital owners to reduce incomes - and thus reduce demand on
the interior market - exports are doing quite well, it seems - which
somewhat is in contradiction with the theory that Germany were not
competitive on the world market. So reforms seem to be necessary -
but the right ones.
The problem with German (west german) society is an exaggerated
fear of inflation - inflation being a mythical obssesion - and no
awareness of the dangers of recession, though it was recession,
deflation and lack of jobs that destroyed the first german democracy.
Therefore, german economical policy tends to be not pragmatic,
but dogmatic - a _de facto_ deficit spending policy like that of
the conservative administrations of Reagan and Bush, notwithstanding
their declarations, would be unthinkable in Germany.
The german problems seem to be of two sorts: 1. a certain rigidity
or stiffness due to over-regulation (but somewhat applies to the
whole EU, as more and more fields of economic activity are in fact
controlled by Brussels), and 2. the german unification. But nobody
seems to be ready to discuss point 2., with the exception of
Lafontaine who insisted omn discussing them, and spectacularly lost
the elections.
I am no economist - but for a moment imagine you have two buckets
of water - one with 8 L at 100° celsius, and one with 2 L at 50°.
Now you pour them together - you obtain 10 L at 90°. Right?
That is not due to a physical peculiarity, but to the statistical
property of temperature as an average measure of the speed of
molecules.
Now take two economies and some measure of productivity per
inhabitant. One with 60 mln inhabitants with a productivity
of 100, and one with 15 mln and a productivity per inhabitant
of 50. Now you unite them into one society of 75 mln. What
will be their average productivity? 90, i.e. 10% less than
that of the bigger one of the two economies. It's a matter
of statistical average.
Now, how to handle that 10% deficit?
a) reduce incomes everywhere.
b) borrow money.
c) hopefully encourage growth.
As by unification there was a lot of purchasing power created
from nothing, the natural result would hav been inflation
(say by 10%) and consequently devaluation of the german currency,
that would also take care of a).
But here the EURO comes in. German currency was not allowed
to float freely, permitting the world market to assess the
economical performance and stability of the united economy.
By german obsession with inflation, a new rigid structure
of prescriptions was created, that by its sheer existence
should preclude any devaluation in any EURO country - having
in mind the usual suspects on the mediterranean shores.
So the EURO goes up and up, germans were highly satisfied,
and never asked themselves what influence a hyperstable
currency would have on their economy in "porte-a-faux" since
unification. Kohl distributed milliards right and left even
befor the EURO was established, the "Aufbau Ost" costs
something between 50 and 80 milliard (am. bilion) EURO
annually, and the German economical locomotive has ever more
difficulties tearing the ever heavier train with brakes
tighly fastened.
Is there someone who really is astonished about the results?
Now the normal thing would be to analyse the situation, try
to loosen some brakes, allow for as little inflation as the
US and UK accept, reduce the protection of existing jobs
in order to facilitate the creation of new ones, reduce the
privileges of the "Beamten" (life-long administration jobs
combined with all sorts of special regulations and traditional
privileges deriving from monarchical times), perhaps accept
that the participation of the enterprises in the cost of the
health scheme is somewhat reduced below 50:50 and fixed, well
there's a lot more to do, and above all - make the eastern
part of the country a lucrative place for investments -
which Kohl in 1990 didn't.
The west of Germany is over-populated, the east of Germany
could - keeping all proportions in mind - be something like
what the centre and west were to the US during the 19th
century - better - the consumers and the work force are
already there, as are motorways and railways, and the
distances, compared to the US, are ridiculously short.
Why in fact an enterprise from the port of Hamburg
where rents and wages are high, should not invest in the
port of Rostock where both are low, where work force is
plentyful, and which by motorway is less than 200 km away?
You see, as far as the "new states" of Germany are concerned,
I do agree with H. Schmidt. Kohl and Schroeder simply didn't
care enough about the eastern part of the country.
But I differ as for the "social reforms". The main reason is:
contary to a lot of propaganda to be found in the media, a
lot of people wants to work, is prepared to work, has got
good professional skills, which if necessary, could be
retrained to adapt to changing technology - but there simply
are not enough jobs. So what happens is that especially in
the east, there is no chance to get a job, and in the west,
certain groups of people have no chance to get one either -
a large segment of the labour market is simply closed to
people say over 35, who still have not finished even one
third of their professional career. The german governments,
neither Kohl nor Schroeder, haven't done anything to change
that - even for state jobs, such limits are rigidly applied
"on principle".
None of the ministers of Schroeder's cabinet would have
a chance on the labour market, if they weren't known for
their political actions and connections. But their pensions
are assured, of course.
The so-called "demographic problem" and the so-called
"generationen-gerechtigkeit" is another often mentioned
problem. The normal way to handle it would be to ask why
people do not have more children even if they would like
to have, and try to find ways to encourage them. I say
encourage, not to feed them with subsidies. I do not really
remember any convincing and full-hearted activities from
either party, but I know cases where a young woman with a
child had a possibility to return to her former skilled
job, and could'nt accept it, because she didn't get a
place in a full-time kindergarten - "because she was not
working". So she had to rely on welfare ... Sounds absurd,
yet it's a fact. She simply moved to another place where
some relatives could take care - and the city lost two
inhabitants, one tax-payer and two consumers ... You see
it is on the micro-scale that the structure doesn't work.
Same thing for the enterprises: additional working hours
if paid may be alright - but who takes care of the children?
If you wish to employ preferably people up to 35 years -
that's the age for children, right? So much for the
demographic problem. But Schroeder until recently had no
children.
As for the "generationengerechtigkeit" if the youngster
raise enough children, there is no reason why the pension
schemes shouldn't work again for them. If they don't have
children, there will be ecnomical problems and a general
slow-down ahead whether we adopt such a scheme or another
one. Remember the trouble of British pension funds a couple
of years ago?
Well, those are the problems of a rich country that
unfortunately got its deepest wishes fulfilled. Germans
should be glad not to have more severe problems. But what
happens? Everybody is depressed and worried, and especially
the leading class has nothing else to do than "german bashing":
The people are too conservative, too hedonistic, they do not
work, they earn too much and spend not enough - they should
save like scotsmen to keep the currency stable, and spend
like americans to keep the economy running, and above all,
the successful leaders must earn more, pay less taxes, and
nobody has the right to compare their income to their
performance, because that is globalization and world markets.
So who is to blame? Of course, the jobless, the handicapped,
and all those who are a burden to the economy. Let's reduce
their income, let's be tougher on them make them work - and
if there is no work, create jobs that are not really paid.
It is the principles that drove the "armenhaeuser" (poor
peoples' work houses) of the 19th century - of course on a much
higher standard of life. Looks good, doesn't work, but hopefully
reduces costs.
But the people will realise? I mean, tody anybody can loose
his job with no chance to get another one? Oh well, let's give
new names to old things:
job-aqtif-Gesetz
agentur fuer arbeit
mini-jobs
job center
ich-AG
"kunden" (jobless)
arbeitslosengeld II (welfare XL)
foerdern und fordern
...
etc.
remember Brave New World?
Brecht wrote: "Das Elend bleibt so wie es war, Du kannst es
nicht ausloeschen ganz und gar - aber du machst es unsichtbar."
Because the real problems aren't really tackled.
The problem is that people aren't that stupid. After a while,
they put 2 and 2 together - and get very very angry. They didn't
vote Schroeder - especially him - into his job for that sort of
a reform.
Whether you share their analysis or not - the will of the
electorate should count in a democracy, right?
So that is Schroeder's problem: he may be "credible" with
Deutsche Bank - his is not credible anymore with a large part of
his electorate. Shoudl have thought about that before. But I am
convinced politicans these days do not care about the voters -
they care about big business for obvious reasons - you cannot rule
against big business - and they care about the media. The problem
with the media is, that next day they take a position contrary to
what they wrote/said yesterday, and do not even remember. The other
problem is that most of the big media journalists have a decent
income, and thus rightly prefer a reduction of taxes to an increase
in social security. So they are simple biased in sight of a reform
of the Hartz IV style. Therefore the echo is good, even very good,
and "wham" - Schroeder receives it all into his face when confronting
the people who are object or object in perspective to his reforms.
What did he expect? Throwing eggs is traditional in well-established
democracies (<grin>, read e.g. Ch. Dickens or take a look at provincial
polictics in the 19th century in the US) - so Schroder shouldn't
whine - he's facing the risks of politicians in full-fledged
capitalist democracies and "civil societies". Not that I approve -
I'm just not astonished. Clement tries to take 1 month's already
reduced subsidy from the jobless - and seriously thinks they won't
realize. When people criticize him, all he has to say is getting very
arrogant. No wonder people do not really like him.
The outcome of all this will be more abstentions during the next
couple of elections, perhaps a certain increase of the political
fringe both on the right and on the left, possibly a certain
exasperation, but I do not yet see where the solution of the
economical problems should come from? The present reforms may
reduce public spending by 7 to 8 miliard EURO - and also reduce
the incomes spent on the interior market. But we see that Vodafone
alone wishes to tear another 20 mlrd in tax reductions or refunding
from the government. Another example: Berlin reduces funding of
education, public libraries, public swimming facilities, etc -
that may save a couple of miliards maximally. At the same time they
engage the city of Berlin in assuring some 30 mlrd EURO for 20
or 30 years in an effort to save a bankrupt bank - driven into
bankrupcy by politicians and would-be bankers.
But none of them ever has to leave his office in hand-cuffs
like in the US - oh no. We respect our ruling class.
Now poor Schroeder receveives the blame for a situation he
is not really responsible for. Bad luck.
Okay, enough is enough.
Would you believe that during 23 years I always voted for the
left and even in the last european elections, in order to
support the under-dog?
But enough is enough.
regards,
A.
Watson & Parisi
news:2p4s8vF...@uni-berlin.de...
[...]
> As to the subject - well I do not agree with you nor with Schmidt
> as to Schroeder. The problem is there is too few "Angebot" and too
> much "Nachfrage" in the present Schroeder/Clement social reforms.
> No offer of jobs, but a lot of pressure on the jobless. That won't
> work - and is rightly understood as a policy that only encourages
> the capital owners to reduce incomes - and thus reduce demand on
> the interior market - exports are doing quite well, it seems - which
> somewhat is in contradiction with the theory that Germany were not
> competitive on the world market. So reforms seem to be necessary -
> but the right ones.
> Would you believe that during 23 years I always voted for the
> left and even in the last european elections, in order to
> support the under-dog?
>
> But enough is enough.
All your points are very well taken and, if I may say so, cleverly expressed
as well. You have provided much more food for thought than I can begin to
assimilate in one day, so I won't cheapen your thought by attempting a quick
reply. I saw another article in Die Zeit today that included the line: "In
Leipzig ist SPD das Kürzel für »Sklavenhalter-Partei Deutschlands«", which
is a sentiment that might fit well with some of your remarks. But let me ask
just one question: Don't you think Stoiber (or Merkel) and the Union would
make even a bigger mess of it by catering even more openly to business
interests? And if so, as you say, where does the German voter go from here?
We Americans are usually stuck voting for the least of two or more evils,
and it appears that this situation may be more the rule than the exception
in the democratic world at large. It's discouraging.
Robert.
thomsen
No - I do not think SPD is a "Sklavenhalter-Partei" at the service of
"evil capitalists". Neither is CDU, btw. The differences were always
gradual ones. The problem is that many years ago, I was active in
that party (SPD), and got to know some people working there on a local
or regional scale. And I was quite astonished and frustrated observing
the limited horizon and sometimes the outright dumbness, opportunism
and petty calculations that directed their decisions. Since then,
I always had a critical look at their activities, though I continued
voting for them, or at least for the present coalition.
> But let me ask just one question:
> Don't you think Stoiber (or Merkel) and the Union would make even a
> bigger mess of it by catering even more openly to business interests?
Not necessarily. At least Stoiber - I won't vote for him - is enough
of a populist to pay attention to the interests of his electorate,
which IMHO to a large extend is petit-bourgeois. He's quite capable
of making substantial concessions, and as big business knows well
that he's their man, and they won't find anyone better, they'll
eventually agree - and of course, at the next occasion when public
attention is focused on other matters, he'll cut a good deal with
BMW, Siemens, and the rest. You see, Stoiber is a _professional_.
> And if so, as you say, where does the German voter go from here?
Hopefully not to the extreme right and left. Some votes for PDS
will not creat permanent problems - the PDS being anything except
a revolutionary organization.
> We Americans are usually stuck voting for the least of two or more
> evils, and it appears that this situation may be more the rule than
> the exception in the democratic world at large. It's discouraging.
That's how the world is made. My contribution was fed by a sentiment
of frustration - I expected the SPD to do better. But since the last
elections I fear that they have not a clear concept of their own, but
rather follow what all sorts of spin-doctors tell them, and in a
clumsy way. Anybody might have told Clement that it is a provocation
to cut one month's subsidies using a formal trick. A really clever
politican would never have tried to. Maybe he'd handed out the
subsidies in the middle of the month or whatsoever.
On the other hand, the handling of the "Dosenpfand", of the
"Praxisgebuehr" and of the "Toll-Collect" affair was highly
unprofessional. Best intentions, but ridiculous performance. These
things, compared to real problems, are but little nuisances, but
somewhat unnerving. The Hartz reforms, on the other hand, for the
first time seriously affect a larger part of the population _in
perspective_.
It is the "new middle" that has to fear most - not the classical
clients of welfare. And that makes the reactions so strong. Everybody
can just calculate how life would be with 345 EURO (or 650 for a
couple) plus the rent for a normal flat, not to forget. And compare
that with the present income. Funny that a professional politican
shouldn't have noticed aforehand ...
But there are lots of places all over the world where people would
be glad to have our present problems. So there is no reason to be
discouraged.
As for the frustration with democracy - that problem has always been
there to some extend, and is going to stay and perhaps to grow.
The reason is so simple that nobody names it: the opening of the
world markets especially for capital - to avoid the buzzword
"globalization" - gives the big investors the possibility to
influence government decisions, to exert pressure etc, to a much
larger extend than anytime in history.
Mind: modern almost anonymous investors are not exactly the same
as classical big business: a pension fund or an anonymous society
formally situated on the Bahamas is not the same as Ford, Coca Cola
or GE. And who really understands Hutchinson Whampoa from Hongkong
now part of the People's Republic of China? But they fed 20 miln
EURO to the CEO of Mannesmann after M. had been taken over by
Vodafone - and Vodafone Germany now wishes to get some 20 mlrds
(am. bilions) from the german government. This is completely
uncontrollable. There are, of course, more examples - take Cologne
streetcars being sold and re-leased to/from American companies
in order to profit from some mysterious tax privileges in the US -
a deal more and more common with broke german cities, and with
unforeseeable consequences in the future. Deals covered of course
by the right of private companies to protect their business secrets.
Democracy is historically intimately connected with the nation
state (yes, the US is a nation), and the nation state is too small
to control the international capital. Some marxism helps to get used
to the idea, but it's not necessary to be a marxist to understand
that - after all, Marx' analysis of capitalism was based on the works
of very respectable and serious economists of the 19th century.
It is a question of power - who's stronger?. Among the democracies,
only the USA, maybe in the future also the EU, are strong enough to
impose their will on big business, and only with great difficulties.
So neither Schroeder nor Stoiber nor Merkel are able to reverse
the tide. Differences are mostly differences of style, of the way
decisions are carried out, and of course different peripheral
matters up to same-sex-marriages, anti-discrimination, support
for certain cultural initiatives etc. A government that wishes to
keep at least some influence and decision power must be very
determined, very efficient, and must have to offer something in
exchange for concessions. In a word, it should be very professional.
That big parties and their policies differ only gradually is okay,
IMHO. The problem is that voters have less and less influence on
who is elected. Neither the european party system nor the american
primary system seems a good method to focus the voter's choice
on the decision between two acceptable alternatives. The ways
candidates become canditates seem to be inunderstandable, and
sometimes almost random - if not by chance some informations
about backstage arrangements etc leak through. So one should
start wondering - why the hell do I have to choose between Bush
and Kerry, or Schroeder, Stoiber and Merkel for that matter?
I think not often the best representants of competing political
parties make it to the polls.
You see, IMHO it will be harder for poor people in the future.
But that only leads us to the european average where everybody
else has arrived much earlier. So I compare Germany with France,
Italy etc - and the German East to the "Mezzogiorno" - and voila -
it is not so bad. Of course, in France they are long used to
throwing eggs and tomatoes ...
Sometimes I write an e-mail to a representative or party official
- and sometimes I even get an answer. Now if thousands of voters
do that - maybe at least the politicians will know the opinion
of their electorate. Often they simply don't. And of course I
go and vote. What else can I do?
No, it is not so bad. We are not at war, the civil rights are not
more endangered than as they always were. And if you are not out
in the street, life for most people is quite, sometimes very
comfortable. And as long as the health care system will not be
seriously damaged, there is no reason to panic.
It is just the ordinary level of frustration. Someone once put
it like that: "Luckily, at least the weather is not decided
upon by politicians!" :-)
regards,
A.
>
> Robert.
>
thomsen
[...]
I think you read german fluently? Now this one is for you: :-)
<http://www.fr-aktuell.de/uebersicht/alle_serien/kultur/flatiron_letters/?cnt=482408>
regards,
A.
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>"thomsen" <a.th...@gmx.de> wrote
>>...well I do not agree with you nor with Schmidt as to Schroeder.
>> The problem is there is too few "Angebot" and too much "Nachfrage"...
>> No offer of jobs, but a lot of pressure on the jobless, it won't work
>>...and is rightly understood as a policy that only encourages the capital
>> owners to reduce incomes - and thus reduce demand on the interior market.
but, but, but... that effect was predictable (and predicted) as effect of
capitalism and globalization...
...it wasn't/isn't but an illusion to think that you can improve the
quality of life for a (significant) percentage of the world population
without "bringing down" some...
>> exports are doing quite well, it seems - which somewhat is in contradiction
>> with the theory that Germany were not competitive on the world market.
up to a point, yes...
>> So reforms seem to be necessary - but the right ones.
...but be careful not to be confused by the effect of foreign aid which is,
usually, linked to obligation to buy in the giving country...
ever noticed how during the visit of high(est) first-world government
officials to second/third world countries, their planes are filled with
industry leaders, along for the ride to grab the business to be had due
to government-guaranteed loans or (ourtight) aid?!? It's scandalous,
all the smoke and mirrors getting waved around in that scene...
>> Would you believe that during 23 years I always voted for the left and
>> even in the last european elections, in order to support the under-dog?
>> But enough is enough.
actually having to govern is a severe *reality shock* (of what's possible),
ask the Greens, ask anyone...
> All your points are very well taken (and cleverly expressed as well)
> You have provided much more food for thought than I can begin to assimilate
> in one day, so I won't cheapen your thought by attempting a quick reply.
that's what I thought also -- and wouldn't have said *anything* had this
followup not been posted...
> I saw an article in Die Zeit today that included the line:
> "In Leipzig ist SPD das Kürzel für »Sklavenhalter-Partei Deutschlands«"
a slogan, not helpful at all...
...that idiot should be forced to govern for a while to learn a bit about
the reality of what's possible in the political reality of today (and what
isn't)...
>...Don't you think Stoiber (or Merkel) and the Union would make even a
> bigger mess of it by catering even more openly to business interests?
exactly!
> And if so, as you say, where does the German voter go from here?
Germany, like the US, is becoming a divided country of "the haves"
and "the havenots" -- the young who inherit (a place to live in) are
living a life experience completely different from the ones who have
to scrape and fight for a piece of the pie --a place of their own--
held up in front of them as the "achievable dream"...
...more and more becoming the modern form of life-long indenture!
> We Americans are usually stuck voting for the least of two or more evils
> and it appears that this situation may be more the rule than the exception
> in the democratic world at large. It's discouraging.
you know what Churchill had to say about "democracy"... right?!?
...but everything else is worse!
here another quote which states matters poignantly...
"When 25% of the population believes that the president should be impeached
and 51% believes in UFO's, you may or may not need a new president, but you
definitely need a new population." -- Harry Reasoner
...when I was working on a project in Venezuela building the Guri dam
(*the* largest in the world, it was claimed for a while during its design
and construction phase) a sad, even sinister, "joke" was making the
rounds, which summed things up pointedly: the only hope for Venezuela is
that the dam breaks (which put a significant part of the country under
lots of water) and to repopulate the country with Swiss...
...and if extra-terrestrials ever find their way to Earth, they'll do is to
fumigate the place to make it livable for "civilized" and
"humane" life forms ! (is my dire prediction)
--
/"\ ASCII... ._. ||--> EscapeCellHell.org (Consumers Union) <--
\ / on Usenet /v\ || If you're not pissed off at the world yet
X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || then you're just not paying attention.
/ \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || --Kasey Chambers
Wayne Brown
[...]
> With all that said, as a foreigner I also would like once again to
> express my admiration for Gerhard Schroeder and his steadfastness. I
> doubt that we have any politician in the US at the national level who
> would dare to put the long range good of his country so directly in
> conflict with his own popularity and that of his party. [...]
As the other poster has already pointed out, this is a highly complicated
issue and extremely difficult to understand. In evaluating the pros and
cons, it's interesting to hear Helmut Schmidt's comments, but it must also
be kept in mind that Schmidt is the grand old man of Schroeder's own party.
Many people in Germany realize the need for reform, but the crunch comes
when they start talking about how to do it. But reading about US politics, I
don't believe I would rely just on what Richard Nixon had to say about
Ronald Reagan's policies. Many other voices have to be heard in order for a
reader to have any hope of getting a clear picture of the issues. It's a
shame that Germans here don't seem to be interested in the topic; their
input could be enlightening. In my opinion, the following article in _Die
Zeit_ also provides some insight. http://www.zeit.de/2004/34/E-Verteilung
Regards, ----- WB.
Watson & Parisi
As it happens, I live in Illinois, and I voted for Obama in the senatorial
primary! I appreciate the humor of the piece, but I'm just not sure I can
grasp all of it. For instance, what is this 'Pep'? Is that as in 'pep
rally'? Also I notice at the bottom "Deutsch von Robin Detje". Was this
taken from some source that was originally in English? If so, where? I liked
it, but I had the feeling that the style of humor might have been a little
over my head.
Robert.
Watson & Parisi
news:cgn9un$u9b$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
> As the other poster has already pointed out, this is a highly complicated
> issue and extremely difficult to understand. In evaluating the pros and
> cons, it's interesting to hear Helmut Schmidt's comments, but it must also
> be kept in mind that Schmidt is the grand old man of Schroeder's own
party.
> Many people in Germany realize the need for reform, but the crunch comes
> when they start talking about how to do it. But reading about US politics,
I
> don't believe I would rely just on what Richard Nixon had to say about
> Ronald Reagan's policies. Many other voices have to be heard in order for
a
> reader to have any hope of getting a clear picture of the issues. It's a
> shame that Germans here don't seem to be interested in the topic; their
> input could be enlightening. In my opinion, the following article in _Die
> Zeit_ also provides some insight. http://www.zeit.de/2004/34/E-Verteilung
I had read that article earlier and, in the typical style of Die Zeit, it
lays out all the complexity of the issue without grinding any ideological
axe. In other words, Die Zeit holds up the highest standard of journalism by
attempting to explain the whole reality as best they know it, without
trimming it to fit their own preconceptions. Of course I agree with you
about Schmidt being not exactly an objective thinker where the SPD is
concerned, and unfortunately I can see the aspects of bumbling and
amateurishness that have been mentioned about the red-green government.
Clement in particular seems to be arrogant and simplistic. I thought it was
hilarious when he defended the form (Formular) for Arbeitlosengeld II by
saying that if people have trouble with it, they should call him up - only
to have several newspapers publish the telephone number of his ministry. And
of course he has also stoutly resisted all attempts to adjust the reforms to
bring them more into accord with reality, even before Schroeder refused
further changes. So yes, it's an extremely complex issue and, appealing as
the SPD may be to me, they bring a great deal of criticism on themselves.
But, as someone said in another group, what's the alternative? Die
Geldwäscherpartei? It's a terrible situation, and I hope it might make
Germans a little more sympathetic toward Americans and their usually
unattractive alternatives for president.
Robert.
thomsen
As the title suggests, the text is from New York and has been translated
into german. I didn't get all of it either. Maybe it's the
translation.
here's some information about the author:
<http://www.fr-aktuell.de/uebersicht/alle_serien/kultur/flatiron_letters/?cnt=385930>
regards,
A.
Ulrich Bortfeld
>
> [...]
>
> > With all that said, as a foreigner I also would like once again to
> > express my admiration for Gerhard Schroeder and his steadfastness. I
> > doubt that we have any politician in the US at the national level who
> > would dare to put the long range good of his country so directly in
> > conflict with his own popularity and that of his party. [...]
>
> As the other poster has already pointed out, this is a highly complicated
> issue and extremely difficult to understand.
Wayne,
there is nothing complicated about this issue. The current situation
in Germany is the net result
of all the policies, rules and regulations that have been instituted
during the last three decades.
The fact that Gerhard Schröder is now enacting some minor reforms
because economic realities are forcing his hand does not absolve him
from the responsibility for his contribution to this development. I
maintain the claim I made earlier in the NG that Germany would be
better off if Mr. Schröder would resign and a conservative government
would take over.
~ Ulrich
Bernd Felsche
>"Wayne Brown" <Wayne.Brow...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:<cgn9un$u9b$07$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>> Watson & Parisi wrote:
>> > With all that said, as a foreigner I also would like once again
>> > to express my admiration for Gerhard Schroeder and his
>> > steadfastness. I doubt that we have any politician in the US at
>> > the national level who would dare to put the long range good of
>> > his country so directly in conflict with his own popularity and
>> > that of his party. [...]
>> As the other poster has already pointed out, this is a highly
>> complicated issue and extremely difficult to understand.
>there is nothing complicated about this issue. The current
>situation in Germany is the net result of all the policies, rules
>and regulations that have been instituted during the last three
>decades.
>The fact that Gerhard Schröder is now enacting some minor reforms
>because economic realities are forcing his hand does not absolve
>him from the responsibility for his contribution to this
>development. I maintain the claim I made earlier in the NG that
>Germany would be better off if Mr. Schröder would resign and a
>conservative government would take over.
What would the conservatives do? Kohl already emptied out retirement
funds because he under-estimated ("estimate" is extremely flattering
in this case) the cost of re-integration of a third of Germany.
A former Australian Prime Minister was renowned for say "life wasn't
meant to be easy". His conscience must have got the better of him.
Governments occasionally have to do things that are unpopular.
It's always difficult picking the right mob to run a country in a
democracy. If you don't believe anything they say during the
election, then you still don't have anything to go by!
If you elect the crowd in opposition, then they claim that the
previous government covered up the true extent of economic
mismanagement. If you re-elect, then they'll find some half-baked
excuse such as foreign trade, oil prices, "terrorism", etc, to do as
they please.
It's pretty much "Government Lotto"; many people play, most lose.
The system sucks; albeit less than other systems that have been
ried.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!
thomsen
> "Wayne Brown" <Wayne.Brow...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<cgn9un$u9b$07$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>[...]
>
> Wayne,
>
> there is nothing complicated about this issue. The current situation
> in Germany is the net result
> of all the policies, rules and regulations that have been instituted
> during the last three decades.
> The fact that Gerhard Schröder is now enacting some minor reforms
> because economic realities are forcing his hand does not absolve him
> from the responsibility for his contribution to this development. I
> maintain the claim I made earlier in the NG that Germany would be
> better off if Mr. Schröder would resign and a conservative government
> would take over.
>
> ~ Ulrich
16 years of CDU/CSU/FDP rule - 6 years of SPD/Gruene rule - and during
the last years CDU/CSU was often able to block decisions through the
2nd chamber originally meant to represent the interests of the states
vs. the federal government, but in act often used to enforce a de-facto
participation of the opposition in thelegislation process.
What would be better if Merkel ruled? Hartz IV and other reforms to
a large extends have been the result of a compromise with the
opposition, and thus can be ascribed not only to Schroeder/Fischer,
but also to Merkel/Stoiber. Merkel by trying to force through
tougher "reforms" would be met by stronger protests even from her
own electorate.
regards,
A.
Ulrich Bortfeld
I don't have a problem with Hartz IV. I have a problem with what is
not being done. Making the unempoyed fill out 5-page forms is not
going to solve Germany's economic problems. That is the main reason
for people's frustration. The Hartz reforms do not really offer any
hope for improving the economic situation, they simply manage the slow
and steady decline.
The key to solving the unemployment problem really lies removing the
barriers for employment, and in this area the Social Democrats still
have not learned their lesson. You might remember the fiasco with the
"Ausbildungsplatzabgabe". They still treat employers as if they were
enemies. It's time to stop the class warfare and start to cultivate a
more business-friendly economic environment.
~ Ulrich
thomsen
>>16 years of CDU/CSU/FDP rule - 6 years of SPD/Gruene rule - and during
>>the last years CDU/CSU was often able to block decisions through the
>>2nd chamber originally meant to represent the interests of the states
>>vs. the federal government, but in act often used to enforce a de-facto
>>participation of the opposition in thelegislation process.
>>What would be better if Merkel ruled? Hartz IV and other reforms to
>>a large extends have been the result of a compromise with the
>>opposition, and thus can be ascribed not only to Schroeder/Fischer,
>>but also to Merkel/Stoiber. Merkel by trying to force through
>>tougher "reforms" would be met by stronger protests even from her
>>own electorate.
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>A.
>
>
> I don't have a problem with Hartz IV.
I do.
> I have a problem with what is
> not being done. Making the unempoyed fill out 5-page forms is not
16-page, not 5.
> going to solve Germany's economic problems. That is the main reason
> for people's frustration. The Hartz reforms do not really offer any
> hope for improving the economic situation, they simply manage the slow
> and steady decline.
That seems to be the case.
> The key to solving the unemployment problem really lies removing the
> barriers for employment, and in this area the Social Democrats still
> have not learned their lesson.
That's arguable.
> You might remember the fiasco with the "Ausbildungsplatzabgabe".
> They still treat employers as if they were enemies.
You seem to believe that "all employers are equal". But some are more
equal than others. I'd distinguish between e.g. Deutsche Bank, Siemens,
BMW, Deutsche Telekom etc on the one hand, the so-called "Zulieferer"
and "Mittelstaendische Unternehmer" on the other hand, and finally the
Doctor, Dentist, Architect, Baker, Butcher, Hair-cutter, etc. in the
local main street "Einkaufsstrasse" - it is not clear whether what's
good for one category is good for the other groups. Cf. new criteria
for credits "Basle II". I think the left is too open to suggestions from
the first group, less to the situation of the second and doesn't
understand the needs of the third group.
> It's time to stop the class warfare and start to cultivate a
> more business-friendly economic environment.
See above. "Business-friendly" is a buzzword, as long as you do not
specify which one. An example: who profits from the new software
patenting regulations? I suppose, big business. Small companies
may run into trouble. Another example: what would be best for
development in the "New States"? probably enhancing the conditions
for small and middle business - as today they create most jobs and
"Ausbildungsplätze". Now, the best thing would be to ask Deutsche
Bank etc _publicly_ how about credits for existing and profitable
eastern small and local business - and what about bad rating of
their geographic position? Why a profitable small business in say
Perleberg cannot get credits on the same conditions as one
situated in upper Bavaria?
As for "class warfare" - there ain't any. All sides try to tear the
blanket to their side, ready to leave the other party in the cold.
That's natural, but by no means "class warfare". Hundt, Rogowski,
and Henkel see their job as lobbying for lower wages - Peters and
the other guy, Sommer, fight for higher wages - that's their job,
like in any capitalist country.
> ~ Ulrich
regards,
A.
luca
Ulrich Bortfeld wrote:
....
> Wayne,
>
> there is nothing complicated about this issue. The current situation
> in Germany is the net result
> of all the policies, rules and regulations that have been instituted
> during the last three decades.
By CDU governments..
> The fact that Gerhard Schröder is now enacting some minor reforms
> because economic realities are forcing his hand does not absolve him
> from the responsibility for his contribution to this development. I
> maintain the claim I made earlier in the NG that Germany would be
> better off if Mr. Schröder would resign and a conservative government
> would take over.
>
> ~ Ulrich
So what makes u think that a CDU goverment would be tougher than
Schoeder in social programs.
hehehe could it be that u r an "ideological" CDU voter disregard of what
the governments actually do?
inge
>
> Ulrich Bortfeld wrote:
> >
> > going to solve Germany's economic problems. That is the main reason
> > for people's frustration. The Hartz reforms do not really offer any
> > hope for improving the economic situation, they simply manage
> > the slow and steady decline.
>
> That seems to be the case.
Plus, people feel cheated. For years they've been kicked out into the
wild, to trust their savings for old age to companies that do not have
their customer's best interest at heart, and now they're told that if
they lose their jobs, they lose their pension money also. Jo-ho. *Just*
the way to become *real* popular.
Oh, and if your old mother has lost her pension money, you're not even
allowed to buy her a new pair of shoes. Or if you do, the state will
take the money from her "allowance". Yeah, real clever. (Hamburger
Abendblatt, letzte Woche?)
If Hartz had made a list of hot buttons to make the middle and lower
middle class squeal in righteous indignation, and set out to push every
one of them, he couldn't have done much better. So far he's hit the
desire to save up for old age, family sense, generosity to the needy,
thriftyness, and had I been at the protest today I could probably think
of some more.
Oh, and everyone's who is somehow involved into creating economic
statistics whines that the Germans don't go shopping. Can't imagine why.
However, Hartz IV could actually solve *that*.
And the funny thing is, I'm not even entirely sure that the whole affair
isn't based in some sound reasoning that I would even be able to
accept. However, the government is as good in selling it as America is
in selling democracy abroad. You could offer a diamond for a dime, if
you force people at gunpoint to buy it, they will be pissed off.
>
> > The key to solving the unemployment problem really lies removing the
> > barriers for employment, and in this area the Social Democrats still
> > have not learned their lesson.
>
> That's arguable.
>
Read
<http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/artikel/0,2828,314156,00.html
>. I'm usually too lazy to develop significant criminal energy, but I can't seem to get this 300 Euro bonus I'd get if I somehow become a "Wohltaetigkeitsorganisation" and have some unemployed person look after my cats (for which the unemployed person would get 200 Eu and had to return most of *that* to the state, and would get out of those annoying umemployment statistics) out of my head.
>
> > It's time to stop the class warfare and start to cultivate a
> > more business-friendly economic environment.
>
> See above. "Business-friendly" is a buzzword, as long as you do not
> specify which one.
Another example: Toll collect. They shoved billions down the throats of
big business who promised to deliver a science fiction-type technology
(and have made themselves a laughing stock ever since). If they truly
wanted to get the toll money and create jobs, they could have get it
done low-tech for less.
inge
--
It is easier to stay out than get out.
- Mark Twain
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
===
To send me priority mail, replace 'wildwusel' with 'lyorn'.
inge
>
> Ulrich Bortfeld wrote:
> ....
> > The fact that Gerhard Schröder is now enacting some minor reforms
> > because economic realities are forcing his hand does not absolve him
> > from the responsibility for his contribution to this development. I
> > maintain the claim I made earlier in the NG that Germany would be
> > better off if Mr. Schröder would resign and a conservative government
> > would take over.
> >
> > ~ Ulrich
>
> So what makes u think that a CDU goverment would be tougher than
> Schoeder in social programs.
>
Take a look at their footprints in the "reforms" and you'll know what
they'd do on their own.
Unless they're involved in evil masterminding...
Ulrich Bortfeld
> > barriers for employment, and in this area the Social Democrats still
> > have not learned their lesson.
>
> That's arguable.
They have not and they will not any time soon. If they understood
anything about economics
they would not be in the situation they are in right now. I don't
claim that everything they do is wrong.
About half the things they do go in the right direction. The other
half goes in the opposite direction.
The result is a toxic cocktail of market-oriented reforms and new
taxes and regulations that has killed off any impulses for new
investment and economic growth. A change of goverment would have an
immediate psychological impact. It would restore the confidence of
investors and companies and it could fairly quickly improve the
unemployment situation. The public servants in the Arbeitsamt could go
back to doing what they do best: Folding paper hats out those unused
16-page Hartz IV application forms.
~ Ulrich
Ulrich Bortfeld
The problem that the Social Democrats face is indeed of an ideological
one. After the demise of
communism/socialism in Eastern Europe the have become ideological
orphans. In absence of
a guiding philosophy they don't know where the journey is supposed to
go. That explains why
they appear so disoriented and confused, as well as their
incomprehensible mix of contradictory
policies. That such a government is not beneficial for the economy
should not suprise anyone.
You can never be sure with what kind of nonsense they are going to
come up next. Their tendency
to publicly debate every idiotic idea that comes to their mind does
not help either. The people who pay the price for this are the
so-called "little people" who they claim to represent.
Gerhard Schröder has the misfortune to have to manage this insanity.
Looking at the alternatives,
one has to admit that he seems to be the most qualified to run the
country. Unfortunately he has
the same problem as his social-democratic predecessor Helmut Schmidt:
he is in the wrong party.
If he changes to the CDU, I will vote for him again. (I hope that
answers your question.)
~ Ulrich
thomsen
That's a nice piece of demagogical rethorics. But how about the
following:
I'll be ready to believe in the reformatory intentions of the CDU
as soon as they are willing to reform, and that means to a large
extend abolish - the "Beamtenstatus", also known as
"die althergebrachten Grundsätze des Berufbeamtentums".
regards,
A.
> ~ Ulrich