Angela Merkel Lucky the Bar for “Worst German Leader” is Very High

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Matthew Yglesias

The government of Germany has taken a consistently unhelpful attitude since the outbreak of the financial crisis, and today is no exception:

Chancellor

Angela Merkel's government rebuffed U.S. calls to focus on bolstering growth over debt reduction

, setting a course for conflict at the Group of 20 summit in Canada this week.

"Nobody can seriously dispute that excessive public debts, not only in Europe, are one of the main causes of this crisis,"

Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told reporters in Berlin today alongside Merkel. "That's why they have to be reduced." [...]

German

Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle, at a separate press conference earlier today, said the U.S. must join Europe in "urgently" cutting spending

.

I would categorically dispute that excessive public debts are one of the main causes of the crisis. As John Quiggin persuasively argues nothing about the relative share of public and private debts, pre-crisis, in the capital inflow countries has had any impact on the way the crisis plays out. In Spain, for example, the budgetary practices were extremely sound—almost German—until the collapse of the housing market knocked everything sideways. Fundamentally, what German politicians don't seem to want to admit is that their high-savings export-oriented economy only works if someone else runs a high-debt economy and buys their stuff. Given the massive develaraging in the private sector of every advanced economy (the US included) if foreign governments balanced their budgets the German economy would collapse:

I'll note for conservatives in the audience that there's even plenty of right-wing stuff the German government could be doing that would be more helpful than lecturing foreigners about their budget deficits. Temporary tax cuts, for example, or liberalization of Germany's retail/service sectors. The Merkel government has also been a bit oddly eager to say that hedge fund regulation is somehow the key to our problem, or that if we don't let financial markets register pessimism that problems will go away.

link

Edited June 22, 2010 by El Buscador

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Libs are just upset because a world leader is finally showing some fiscal restraint. Every husband (or wife) learns, sooner, or later, that until you take the spouse's credit cards away, all you do is go deeper into debt every month.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Libs are just upset because a world leader is finally showing some fiscal restraint. Every husband (or wife) learns, sooner, or later, that until you take the spouse's credit cards away, all you do is go deeper into debt every month.

You missed Matt's point. Germany's domestic policies aren't what created this crisis and gutting programs that have been in place for decades will only make matters worse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think Germany is alone in putting debt reduction at the forefront of it's economic policy.

Have a look at what the UK government announced today.

You missed Matt's point. Germany's domestic policies aren't what created this crisis and gutting programs that have been in place for decades will only make matters worse.

There does come a point when those programs are no longer affordable.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

There does come a point when those programs are no longer affordable.

some programs are nice to have, but when the going gets tough, some programs got to go.

[DEDixon 39]

kind of like the left being lucky that the bar for a highly secure southern border is set very low so when a few more guards are added, they can say the border is at record breaker high security. off topic, but i couldn't resist.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

some programs are nice to have, but when the going gets tough, some programs got to go.

some were never supposed to make it past a couple of years....

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

some were never supposed to make it past a couple of years....

Like Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Like Iraq and Afghanistan?

indeed.

let's just hope they don't last as long as SS and medicare!

[Pooky 3,343]

You missed Matt's point. Germany's domestic policies aren't what created this crisis and gutting programs that have been in place for decades will only make matters worse.

Germany's domestic policies since reunification have put considerable and persistent strain on the German economy for the past 20 years. The financial downturn basically made it impossible for Germany to continue without implementing financial cutbacks.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

One of the ironies of the last four years, is that electing the most "progressive" Congress ever, to further expand the Welfare State, has only hastened it's demise. It was bound to happen. Sooner, or later, all pyramid schemes run out of "investors". You can blame greed, and you should, from wall street, to GM, to welfare momma, greed has made the Golden Goose barren.

[Peikko 1,575]

One of the ironies of the last four years, is that electing the most "progressive" Congress ever, to further expand the Welfare State, has only hastened it's demise. It was bound to happen. Sooner, or later, all pyramid schemes run out of "investors". You can blame greed, and you should, from wall street, to GM, to welfare momma, greed has made the Golden Goose barren.

It is an absolute disgrace that 'welfare momma' is considered a valid appellation for women who are consistently falsely held up as the symbols of how welfare is abused, is an unnecessary luxury and the sole cause of stress on a system that was designed to and DOES enable people who are going through a period of financial difficulty due to circumstances beyond their control to survive outside of abject poverty. Poor houses are not a viable alternative for these women, and manicured nails are not an indication they are wallowing in the lap of luxury at 'our' expense.

I have no idea why anyone would wish to return single parents to the conditions of poverty endemic in the 18th and 19th century or why anyone would constantly attack not only single mothers, but all the most vulnerable in society as if these people are genuinely responsible for anyone's financial woes. Pathetic is what that is, pathetic and systematic of an attitude of selfishness and a denial that organising humans in social structures where resources are voluntarily shared is mutually beneficial, not only financially, but also in terms of ensuring social stability.

Vilifying the poor does more damage to social stability than some people seem capable of recognizing, more's the pity. Threats to social cohesion do not lie in sexual promiscuity or the expansion of acceptable relationships, but they do lie squarely in holding up the poor as irresponsible and feckless individuals who contribute nothing, squander the majority, or even a significant proportion of precious tax dollars, are sexually immoral (finger wagging, tut tut tut) and essentially a worthless bunch of wannabe or actual criminals that 'we' would be better off kicking to touch.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and whoever came up with the title for this thread is an idiot, even a passing comparison with the current German leader with Hitler is beneath contempt.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It is an absolute disgrace that 'welfare momma' is considered a valid appellation for women who are consistently falsely held up as the symbols of how welfare is abused, is an unnecessary luxury and the sole cause of stress on a system that was designed to and DOES enable people who are going through a period of financial difficulty due to circumstances beyond their control to survive outside of abject poverty. Poor houses are not a viable alternative for these women, and manicured nails are not an indication they are wallowing in the lap of luxury at 'our' expense.

I have no idea why anyone would wish to return single parents to the conditions of poverty endemic in the 18th and 19th century or why anyone would constantly attack not only single mothers, but all the most vulnerable in society as if these people are genuinely responsible for anyone's financial woes. Pathetic is what that is, pathetic and systematic of an attitude of selfishness and a denial that organising humans in social structures where resources are voluntarily shared is mutually beneficial, not only financially, but also in terms of ensuring social stability.

Vilifying the poor does more damage to social stability than some people seem capable of recognizing, more's the pity. Threats to social cohesion do not lie in sexual promiscuity or the expansion of acceptable relationships, but they do lie squarely in holding up the poor as irresponsible and feckless individuals who contribute nothing, squander the majority, or even a significant proportion of precious tax dollars, are sexually immoral (finger wagging, tut tut tut) and essentially a worthless bunch of wannabe or actual criminals that 'we' would be better off kicking to touch.

Do me a favor please, on the last day of the month go to any super Walmart or other 24 hour grocery store around 11:30 at night. You will find the store packed with mothers with baskets full waiting for midnight for their food stamps and AFDC cards to refill. You will not see one father or husband there, only generations of women with their kids and grandkids. What was suppost to be a hand up for those less fortunate has turned into a family business. Grandmothers teach their daughters and they in turn teach their daughters how to game the system. We have lost countless families due to wellfare. Mothers don't want their childrens fathers living with them because it will mean they lose their welfare benifits. This isn't racism talking here, this is honest observation. You need to look around.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do me a favor please, on the last day of the month go to any super Walmart or other 24 hour grocery store around 11:30 at night. You will find the store packed with mothers with baskets full waiting for midnight for their food stamps and AFDC cards to refill. You will not see one father or husband there, only generations of women with their kids and grandkids. What was suppost to be a hand up for those less fortunate has turned into a family business. Grandmothers teach their daughters and they in turn teach their daughters how to game the system. We have lost countless families due to wellfare. Mothers don't want their childrens fathers living with them because it will mean they lose their welfare benifits. This isn't racism talking here, this is honest observation. You need to look around.

No, it's sexism talking, sexism and ignorance. You look at people and imagine you understand their lives just because they conform to some stereotype you've read about in some sensational journalism that seeks to divert attention away from the real causes of the financial difficulties of the middle classes onto the poor, as if somehow they really are a significant drain on tax dollars. Even a cursory glance at the budget figures tells the least astute of people that this is monumentally false. Poverty is always ugly, but it could be so much more so, and as I said, the destruction of society that ensues by this vilification of those least in a position to influence the wealth of the average person is one of the biggest scandals perpetrated today. Stop seeking the excuse that if only single mothers didn't exist America would be rosy - poppycock, they have no significant effect at all - the only people who are suffering because of it are the single mothers themselves and their children, period.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo