« That's Not Fair! / Das ist nicht fair! | Main | Germany: No More Lederhosen? »


I am a bit surprised that no one has made a comment on this. I surely do not want to be the first. So please someone write something, all of Germany cannot be so depressed if for no other reason than your "free" health insurance system would never allow it.

How difficult will it be for a new government to achieve the necessary reforms and put Germany back on the road to economic health again?

Are the people upset enough to support reforms?
How deep?

-Just curious as to the mood of the German people in how far a 'reformer' would be allowed to go.

I read the original NYT article and immediately wondered what this log would make of it. I did not, however, actually check until now.

That's a good summary. (paraphrase) "According to the press, the Germans, so well placed to advise the US, no longer feel confident in their ability to run their own affairs."

My only disappointment is that I did not see it myself. The angle I considered is rather lame by contrast. "The Germans can take comfort in this, their hour of despair, from knowing that the US is worse no matter what. After all, their media tells them so."

the germans dont know how to fix their economy,in international questions they are sure about their own, and america,too.thats the point.and NYT didnt said something different.read honestly.

Unless every story I've read on the matter has lied, the Chancellor is largely responsible for both domestic and foreign affairs. Schroeder ran on an extremely anti-American platform in late 2002 largely to offset his unpopular (although mild) proposed economic reforms. The two are largely seen as a package deal (buy one, get the other).

Thatcher and Reagan, mentioned in the NYT article as models for potential cures, were each package deals as well. I do not know if the German media that started the debate made similar references or not. But the NYT certainly did. Thatcher and Reagan are remembered at least as much for the collapse of the USSR as for economic reforms.

If you wish, you may chalk that interpretation up to a bias in the NYT, who should not have included those leaders without limiting the scope of their comparison to Germany. If so, you must read the bias the way the NYT sees it. The NYT regards Reagan and Thatcher as representative of many things that are wrong with the UK and US. Their inclusion is a none too subtle warning to readers that the Germans should stay the course (Reagan's words), and avoid reforms (but not his actions).

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29