Davids Medienkritik

Capitalism the German Way

During my morning workout today I watched "Morgenmagazin", a mutual tv programme by ARD and ZDF, Germany's mammoth public tv channels. One topic was German automaker Porsche's announcement to acquire twenty percent of Volkswagen AG.

The reporters of "Morgenmagazin" were jubilant about the transaction. They called it a "win-win" situation for Porsche as well as Volkswagen. A leading conservative politician (Christian Wulff), who was interviewed about the transaction, was equally impressed. He stressed that Porsche was loyal to Germany.

The Porsche folks' own justification for the proposed deal is

...to prevent any hostile takeover of VW that could threaten the partners' business ties.

Concerned that a European court could overturn the so-called "VW law" that helps shelter Europe's biggest carmaker from unfriendly advances, Porsche said it needed to boost its current stake of under 5 percent to protect the German car partnership.

"Our planned investment is the strategic answer to this risk," Chief Executive Wendelin Wiedeking said in a statement.

Porsche builds its Cayenne offroader with Volkswagen and also is developing fuel-saving hybrid technology with VW, which supplies content for 30 percent of Porsche's sales volume.

Porsche said in a statement it would fund the purchase of the stake -- worth around 3.3 billion euros ($4.01 billion) at current prices -- from available liquidity. A spokesman added it might increase its stake by buying VW shares on the market.

"The stake will in no case reach the level at which Porsche would have to make a public offer to take over VW," it said.

Volkswagen welcomed the move. A spokesman quoted Chief Executive Bernd Pischetsrieder as saying a stable shareholder structure was important for its long-term business prospects and would strengthen VW's working relationship with Porsche.

At the time of this posting - 1 pm Berlin time on Sept. 26 - the Porsche stock was down 9 percent, while VW's shares oscillate around last weeks closing level (against a 2.4 percent gain of the DAX, Germany's stock index). Porsche shareholders pay through their nose for this "strategic answer" to shelter VW from "unfriendly advances", meaning foreign investors trying to impose on VW anglo-saxon standards of running a business efficiently. Rather than letting shareholders participate in Porsche's large cash holdings, Porsche's management decided to tie the company to the fortunes of a German manufacturer of small and mid-sized cars with considerable sales and profit problems.

(BTW - the cooperation of Volkswagen and Porsche dates back to the days of Adolf Hitler. The Porsche family - represented by former Volkswagen CEO Ferdinand Piech, an engineer with great technical knowledge, but lacking in marketing skills - still owns a considerable share of the Porsche and the VW stock.)

Porsche's decision to increase the VW stake most likely is not a wise move from a strictly business perspective. In Germany's anti-anglo-saxon political climate the decision will be hailed by the left, however, as necessary for the good of the Vaterland.

If you are searching for the root causes of Germany's miserable job performance, the Porsche/VW deal may well serve as a typical example of "Capitalism the German Way", that eventually leads to a further deterioration of Germany's economic power.

Porsche's Cayenne - a symbol of capitalism the German way...

Socialism - Germans Support Another Try

Bill at Dawson's Danube reports on the result of a survey in Germany (quoting David Harnasch):

Poll shows strong resonance for Leftist principles in Germany

Leftist political principles resonate well among German voters. In a poll conducted for Spiegel by TNS Infratest, 56% of west germans and 66% of east germans agree with this statement: "Socialism is a good idea that has so far been poorly implemented." 50% in the west and 73% in the east agree that Karl Marx's criticisms of Capitalism are still relevant today. The proposition "there must be a third way between capitalism and socialism" finds agreement among 67% of the westerners and 63% of the easterners. 

Actually, Germany already found the third way between capitalism and socialism: 10 % unemployment rate, shrinking of real disposable income, deteriorating public services, severe financing problems of the health system, etc., etc.

I suppose we won't have to wait too long for another try at socialism in Germany. After all, "socialism is a good idea that has so far been poorly implemented."

Jobs Growth Unexpectedly Strong in July

In the U.S., that is.

U.S. job growth picked up last month as employers added 207,000 workers to their payrolls, a healthy gain that outstripped Wall Street expectations, a government report showed on Friday. 

The unemployment rate held steady at the 2-3/4-year low of 5 percent reached in June, the Labor Department said.

The payrolls gain, spurred on by service-sector hiring, was stronger than expected by economists who had looked for an increase of 183,000 with the jobless rate steady.

"This is a crystal clear indication that the labor markets are very healthy and it reinforces the notion that the economy is growing in a healthy, sustainable way," said Dana Johnson, chief economist at Comerica in Detroit.

Cowboy economics with shareholder value greed and 'hire and fire' philosophy beats socially conscious German third way model? Sinking the doom and gloom prediction of a leading German left-wing media outlet?

Hmm... At least you can find a lot of friends at your local job center in Germany.

Note from Ray D.: I just wanted to add the US economy is thriving despite $60+ prices for oil, September 11 and the military expense of the war on terror.

"Germans Regulate Anything That Moves"

Interesting interview with the Aspen Institute's Jeff Gedmin at the Clive Davis blog.

Excerpts:

You want Berlin to be a pioneer city, but there is still the smell of socialism in the air. Caution kills and today's Germany has made caution and consensus into a fetish ... Germans regulate still virtually everything that moves. This attitude - it starts in the minds of people - kills individual initiative, responsibility, risk, innovation. All in the name of "social justice," of course.

Q - Should America close its military bases in Germany?

Yes, some at least. The Cold War is over. Germans feel at best ambivalent about the US presence. That's fine. Obviously, our strategic requirements are changing rapidly. Still, I wonder what psychological impact this will have on Germany and its neighbours. I think the test of Germany finding its place in Europe will be tougher than most think. (...)

Anti-Americanism runs deep. Bush is an excuse for many. Angela Merkel will not play the anti-American card the way Schroeder has done so. But she will have to fend off anti-Americanism on the right. Just watch after the 6-12 month honeymoon.

Read the whole interview.

No More Blaming Whitey

There are tons of excellent comments to Ray's posting "Amerikanische Verhältnisse vs.German Conditions".

Here is one particular brilliant comment that deserves a posting of its own. The author Pensive Elf (e-mail) responds to a comment by "anonymus".

@anonymous: You know I'm getting really sick of this bullshit with the downtrodden minority business. I don't know whether you're German or American or Black or White or Hispanic. But whatever you are, you're either blind or you don't want to see what's in front of you.

You act like every Black and Hispanic is living at poverty level, and collecting food stamps, while only the Whites have it made. That idea is so laughable and so far outside my experience, that it isn't even funny.

I'm Hispanic. I was born, bred and raised in Texas. I now live in a little town outside of Houston, but I started my academic career in an historically *BLACK UNIVERSITY*. Big shock, bet you didn't know that there were historically Black colleges and universities, did you? We have three right here in Texas that I know of.

I saw plenty of nice cars and nice clothes, and met Black and Hispanic people whose parents were professional people like doctors, lawyers, etc. And guess what...just because a Black person drives a Mercedes, that doesn't mean he's a drug dealer. There is a strong middle class and upper middle class Black and Hispanic population who are conservatives. These people are *not* the exception to the rule, nor are they Kiss-Ass Uncle Toms as you liberals are so fond of labeling any member of a minority race who has the temerity to be both a Conservative *AND* a Republican.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I know. It's just that I'm sick and tired of

Amerikanische Verhältnisse vs. German Conditions

Annual GDP Growth Rates 1998-2004

(Source US Data/Source Germany Data) *Correction

(Source: US Department of Labor/Bundesagentur für Arbeit) (Graph including western German states)

Wirtschaftsblunder: German Socialism Continues to Fail (click link below for more...)

Finally, Germans Move Away from Socialism...

This observation comes from a reader of Davids Medienkritik who emailed us:

I am a Californian who has been living near St. Gallen with my family of 5 for 15 years after having worked for the US Army in Frankfurt from '87-'90 during the Reagan build up. We moved to Switzerland shortly after our side won the cold war.  We had some German friends from Wiesbaden up until about a year ago, but frankly they have become so anti-american that we have let the friendship fade away. 

I have been visiting your site every week or so for several months, and enjoy your commentary very much. If you are interested, I would like to send you occasional material from here.

I work in Zürich and have noticed more and more Germans moving here for the work, the pay, and the low taxes. The Swiss media have noticed this trend as well. These immigrants are normally younger, well educated and have marketable skills. In many suburbs of Zurich the German children in the schools are the largest minority and sometimes even exceed the number of Swiss children in their classes!  It would seem that these Germans are voting with their feet for lower taxes and less socialism.  I find it very interesting how the White Russians go to Poland to find work, the Poles go to Germany, and the Germans come here.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: Bravely Refusing the Facts

(By Ray D.)

SZ: "Bush Bravely Refuses Environmental Protection"

Few newspapers have been as consistently one-sided and mind-numbingly populist over the past few years as the Sueddeutsche Zeitung when it comes to reporting on the United States and President George W. Bush. The latest example is an article entitled "USA: Economy Against Bush".

The article's opening paragraphs read:

"USA: Economy Against Bush

The US President bravely refuses environmental protection - but the companies of his country are rethinking in the meantime.
By Andreas Oldag

With his categorical 'no' to all binding objective-setting for climate protection, President Bush has not only isolated himself in the circle of industrial states. Also in his own country he is increasingly encountering resistance. They are initiatives from the US states but equally from companies that have of late discovered their heart for environmental protection."   

The first problem with the article is that the Sueddeutsche Zeitung appears to intentionally confuse President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty with a stubborn and sweeping refusal to protect the environment on any level. The article does not begin by stating that Bush bravely refuses Kyoto but clearly asserts that he "bravely refuses environmental protection" and categorically rejects all environmental standards and goals. In so doing, SZ is once again providing its readership with the simplistic, black-and-white, Bush-is-evil view of reality that they so obviously crave.

Unfortunately for SZ, reality is far more complex and nuanced. Whether one supports it or not, the Bush administration clearly does have a well-defined environmental policy consisting of numerous objectives and standards. These include:

• The Clear Skies Initiative: According to the White House, this plan "has been introduced in Congress and would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative."
• "The EPA announced a proposal to require coal-burning power plants to make the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade. The Interstate Air Quality Rule will require power plants to substantially reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Sulfur dioxide will be cut by nearly 70 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions will be cut by approximately 50 percent.
• "Mercury emissions from power plants are not currently regulated. For the first time ever, the Bush administration will impost a mandatory 70 percent cut in mercury emissions from those sources by 2018.
• "In April 2003, EPA issued a proposed rule that will dramatically reduce pollution from heavy-duty diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial equipment. (...) Soot and nitrogen oxide emissions will decrease by more than 90 percent by 2014, and the sulfur content of diesel fuel will be cut 99 percent by 2010.
• "President Bush has committed America to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output by 18 percent by 2012 compared to 2002.
• "A 42 percent increase in climate change research initiative funding."

But of course, none of those items are ever mentioned by SZ. Readers are left to assume that Bush is a nature-hating barbarian out to destroy the environment at all costs. And that is precisely the view of Bush the media has conditioned them to expect.

Another interesting aspect of the Oldag article is its implication (in the headline) that the private sector is against Bush. So what is it now for the hard-left German media? Is the Bush administration the evil minion of American private interests or their new enemy? German conspiracy theorists are likely in a conniption over this article.

But Oldag reassures readers that capitalist firms like GE and 3M are not pursuing environmentally friendly products and technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, but are instead acting in self-interest to pad their bottom-lines. In so doing, the author unknowingly contradicts the titular claim of his article that the economy is "Against Bush". To quote from the White House website:

• "Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem – because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment." ---President Bush

• "Our approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is an essential part of the solution, not the problem. Economic growth will make possible the needed investment in research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies."

Finally, towards the end of the article the author touches on the true source of so much European ire: The refusal of the United States to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Oldag writes that American concerns over the treaty represent a "horror scenario":

"Washington has come up with a horror scenario according to which Kyoto would cost the US economy 400 billion Dollars (313 billion Euros) and 4.9 million jobs."

But the article never offers a shred of factual evidence or the slightest explanation as to why these estimates in fact represent hyperbolic exaggeration. Readers are provided no alternative view by SZ as to what the actual, "realistic" impact on the US economy would be. Essential elements of the Bush administration's views on Kyoto are omitted as well. Here is the White House's statement on the issue:

"This Administration decided not to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on climate change because its implementation would have meant the loss of nearly $400 billion in U.S. GDP, and up to 4.9 million lost American jobs, many of which would be exported overseas to developing countries with lower environmental standards, hurting our economic competitiveness. It is bad enough that the jobs go to the other countries. But that also means that the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution also go there, and in many instances go up -- so we would not achieve anything to address the issue of reducing emissions globally. That is why 95 U.S. senators, with no opposing vote, rejected the design of the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, long before President Bush came into office."

The SZ piece also never brings up the fact that India and China, the world's two most populous nations, are exempt from the treaty, meaning that nearly half the world's population is exempt. Another key fact that is largely ignored by the German media is that the US Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted unanimously (95-0) to reject Kyoto in 1997. Additionally, the 1990 baseline used by Kyoto for measurement of emissions provides a huge advantage to nations like Germany that once had territory in the Warsaw Pact and have since shut down large numbers of obsolete factories left over from the Cold War. Nations like Ukraine and Poland have effortlessly cut emissions since 1990 in that they have simply shut down unprofitable old Soviet-era factories. Nations like Japan, Australia and the United States don't share in that historic advantage.

But those facts are of little interest to a German media that has found the Kyoto treaty to be a convenient, populist blunt-object with which to bash the United States before the screaming masses. Blinded by ideology and profit-lust, many German news outlets have adopted the mentality that the United States and President Bush are guilty until proven innocent. SZ's Oldag piece is just another example of one-sided reporting that twists reality and "bravely refuses" to give readers all of the facts.

(Note: Emphasis above in the original)

Update: One of our commenters, Lars, says that he is a regular SZ reader and writes:

"I cannot remember of any article that correctly explained the US environmental protection strategies compared to Kyoto. The place where I first learned about the differences was a Slashdot discussion! And the only German media so far which repeatedly had quite objective comparative articles about the topic was Telepolis (http://www.telepolis.de)."

We appreciate your honesty Lars.

Two Reasons Germany is Doomed to Mediocrity

(By Ray D.)

Although it appears that Germany will soon have a new government and a fresh start, there are two fundamental attitudes prevalent in German society that will continue to make it difficult for the country to escape its downward spiral into mediocrity. Both attitudes were clearly reflected in a recent June 24 poll done by the ZDF television program "Politbarometer."

Problem Number 1: Neidkultur: Punishing Success

Jealousy and a desire to punish the wealthy are hardly new phenomena in German culture. Edmund Stoiber of the CSU once pointed out that it would be difficult to imagine a German Bill Gates that people admired because he would be so envied. The CDU/CSU has openly discussed combating Germany's culture of jealousy in recent debate. Numerous German superstars and athletes like Boris Becker have fled their home country because of high taxes and the media's tendency to target anyone successful.

The "Neidkultur" mentality has always fed a strong desire in Germany to redistribute wealth in the context of large-scale bureaucratic government 'social' programs. Germans see such drastic re-distribution as 'socially-just', even if the end result is massive unemployment and economic stagnation. Attempts to reduce the burden on the wealthy and slash bureaucracy are almost always immediately shouted-down as 'Sozialabbau' or cuts to the social system. This holds true despite the fact that the rational observer might point out that 5 million unemployed Germans are unmistakable evidence that the current system has led to radical 'Sozialabbau'. Even 'conservative' parties like the CDU dread being accused of 'Sozialabbau' and are unwilling to seriously question the constant desire to redistribute wealth in the name of 'fairness'. And no party wants to face the inevitable protests by special interests whose benefits are on the chopping block. Nothing, not even George W. Bush or an act of terror, is guaranteed to get more angry, outraged Germans on the street than a proposal to cut their government handouts.

Stronger Taxation of Very High Income: 70% For / 27% Against / 3% Don't Know (Source)

So here's the bad news: If you believe that the wealthy are also those who invest the most and create large numbers of jobs both directly and indirectly, then taxing them into the Stone age, as most Germans wish to do, will hardly be conducive to an improving economy or jobs market. If the trend continues, it is unlikely that Germany will remain at the top economically in an ever-changing global world.

Problem Number 2: The Bloated Welfare State

Most of us already know about cradle-to-grave Socialism in Germany. For a short time during the Wirtschaftswunder when West Germany prospered under the protective wing of the United States, the 'social' system actually seemed supportable. Many Germans have erroneously come to believe that if they could only go back to those good old days, that everything would be wonderful again. What many willfully ignore is the onset of globalization and the fierce competition for jobs in areas with optimal business conditions. As a strong (but fading) economic power, Germany is not only expected to pull its own weight, it must also subsidize weaker EU economies. In the future, Germany (and in a larger sense Europe) will also need to spend far more on military capabilities in order to be taken seriously and treated as a true equal by the United States. But with most Germans totally unwilling to make further cuts to the bloated welfare state, there is little hope for smaller, leaner government and dynamic economic growth.

Further Cuts in the Welfare State: 26% Would Agree / 70% Would Disagree / 4% Don't Know (Source)

Why do we point this out? Well, we don't want people to come to the false conclusion that a new government will suddenly change everything in Germany. The fundamental attitudes that dominate in German society simply won't permit it. Unfortunately, if there is no drastic change in attitudes, it appears that Germany will soon begin to drop down the list of the world's top economies. And, for a nation that defines itself on its economic strength, that cannot bode well for the future...

Blood Sucking the Taxpayer Fair Game in Germany

A welcome break after all the neo-marxist bashing of capitalist investors by Germany'a social democrats and the unions: finally an investor chancellor Schroeder can be proud of.

BMW Opens New Plant in Leipzig

German car manufacturer BMW's new 1.3 billion euro ($1.7 billion) factory in Leipzig was opened on Friday by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. ... Currently some 2,500 associates are employed at the site. Once it has reached full capacity, the plant is to provide approximately 5,500 jobs. The company expects that the plant will create approximately the same number of additional jobs in the plant’s surrounding area.

Schroeder, who spoke at the opening of the plant, was enthusiastic about BMW's investment:

"If only all German companies would act the way BMW does, we wouldn't need to have these discussions", Schroeder said, referring to the capitalism debate started by SPD chairman Franz Muentefering.

What Schroeder didn't mention: BMW's total investment of 1.3 billion Euro was helped by 350 million Euro taxpayer money. And that definitely doesn't even include support from the state run worker's unemployment insurance system for the creation of new jobs that typically is part of any large investment in east Germany.

Hey, you blood sucking American capitalists, you globalist locusts: take this socially responsible investment behavior by a GERMAN company as an example for your next blood sucking operations. 

 

After all, blood sucking the taxpayer is considered fair game in Germany...

The SPD's New Scapegoat: Global Capitalist "Locusts"

(By Ray D.)

What do you do if you are running a failing German political party that desperately needs to win an election? Well, if the SPD (the governing Social-Democratic party of Gerhard Schroeder) is any indicator, you find a convenient and popular scapegoat to blame Germany's problems on and make lots of excuses. It already worked once for the SPD during the 2002 election when they blamed Germany's economic woes on 9/11 and floods in eastern Germany and exploited German war fears and anti-American sentiment to pull out a come-from-behind victory. As a matter of fact, the 2002 election marked the last time the SPD led in national polls over its main rival, the CDU (Christian Democratic Party).

Now, with a critical state election in Nordrhein-Westfallen approaching, the SPD leadership is hoping the same tactic will work again and pull the party out of the abysmal ratings canyon in which it has found itself for the past three years.

Ratings 2002-2005: "If next Sunday were election day..."

SPD Ratings Canyon: Election 2002 Marked the Party's Last Lead
Source: ZDF Politbarometer

The SPD's major problems?: The Iraq war is no longer a major issue and people are slowly growing tired of America-baiting and Bush-bashing. Unemployment is at record highs and expected to rise, economic growth has slowed to virtual stagnation and the country continues to run chronic deficits above the 3% maximum set by the EU. So, what is the sputtering German left to do?

2002-2005: How Germans View the General Economic Situation in Germany
gut = good (green), schlecht  = bad (red), teils/teils = so/so (white)

         

Dismal: Only 6% View Germany's Economic Situation as "Good"
Source: ZDF Politbarometer

Of course the Social-Democrats and Greens can't tell the truth and actually admit that they are at fault for the nation's dramatic economic woes. So, just as in 2002, a convenient scapegoat has to be trotted out to distract the public and spark a divisive debate that the leadership hopes will propel it to election-day victory. And the SPD's political guru, Chairman Franz Muentefering, knows just what issue is sure to fire up the party's base...or so he thinks...

Public Enemy #1: Global Capitalism

That's right ladies and gentlemen, Comrade Muentefering has boldly identified global capitalism as the new enemy of the courageous German Socialist movement. Unfortunately for Muentefering, not all of the German left is going along with his intellectually-lazy attacks on financial investors as "locusts." Green fraction leader Katrin Goering-Eckardt, for example, objects to painting all members of the private sector with too broad a brush. Others, on the other hand, think that Muentefering isn't going nearly far enough. Some of them, including hardline union members and angry unemployed workers, went so far as to pelt him with eggs during his May-Day speech.

Opponents of all political stripes are also highly uncomfortable with the SPD's McCarthy-like creation of an enemies list of supposed capitalist transgressors who are to be targeted with boycotts and other consequences. An enormous argument has now broken-out all across Germany that transcends party lines with some on the left defending the "capitalists" and some in the CDU opposition supporting Muentefering. Unfortunately for the SPD, the argument has done little to improve the party's ratings in Nordrhein-Westfallen or anywhere else in Germany...

Chairman Muentefering Says: Down with the Capitalist Locust Enemies!

According to N24, the SPD is now denying the existence of the infamous "locust" list, but has admitted that "a paper exists" that "objectively documents examples" of firms that have allegedly split-up and broken-apart German firms like "locusts" descending on a field. And guess what? The majority of the "asocial, market radical, locust" companies targeted by the SPD in its anti-capitalist crusade just happen to come from the USA. Some things just never change...

The German Media: Economic Reporting SPIEGEL-Style

Speaking of capitalism, here are two interesting SPIEGEL ONLINE articles on a related topic (GDP growth) that recently appeared just one day apart and clearly underline the magazine's political leanings:

Article 1: SPIEGEL ONLINE on GDP Growth in the United States - 28 April 2005:

"Danger for the World Economy: US Economy Losing Steam

America's economy has not grown at such a slow rate for two years. Europe's stock markets came under pressure after the surprisingly weak economic numbers.

Washington - The GDP of the world's largest economy grew in the initial quarter with a rate of 3.1% when calculated for the entire year after 3.8% in the fourth quarter, as reported by the US Commerce Department."

Article 2: SPIEGEL ONLINE on GDP Growth in Germany - 29 April 2005 (one day later):

"Economy: Government Lowers Growth Prognosis

The Federal Minister for the Economy Wolfgang Clement will today lower his growth prognosis for the current year. According to information from government circles in Berlin, Red-Green will also now assume, that the German economy will grow just one percent instead of 1.6%.

Berlin - According to information from the newspaper "Die Welt," The SPD politician Clement is going to name a corridor from 0.75 to 1.25 percent. For the calculation of the federal budget and the funding of the welfare system, a growth rate of 1.0% will be assumed. Up to now, the coalition believed that GDP would grow by 1.6%. For 2006, Clement wants to fix the government's prognosis at 1.6%."

Naturally, SPIEGEL ONLINE completely fails to point out that the supposedly weak and dangerously low first-quarter GDP growth rate in the United States is still more than three times higher than projected GDP growth rate in Germany for 2005! Yet the magazine strikes a far more negative, alarmist tone in its article on the United States, claiming that a three-month, short-term decrease in GDP growth from 3.8% to 3.1% poses a "danger to the world economy" and is evidence that the "US economy is losing steam." By contrast, SPIEGEL ONLINE's entire article on lower government projections for German GDP growth is completely neutral and uncritical. Again, this despite the fact that the German government's projected GDP growth rate is over three times lower than the dangerously "slow" growth rate in the USA!

Somehow this doesn't logically add up. Unless, of course, you factor the massive anti-American bias of SPIEGEL ONLINE into the equation. By the same token, it is very difficult to compare these two articles and not come to the conclusion that SPIEGEL ONLINE is heavily biased in favor of the German national government. Here again, Gerhard Schroeder and company have received a virtual free-pass from their poodles at SPIEGEL ONLINE. 

Incidentally, the 1.0% projection made by the Schroeder government is generous in light of the fact that six of Germany's leading economic institutions just released a prognosis of only 0.7% GDP growth for 2005. And here is another fact you won't see reported very often in the German media: GDP per capita in the United States under President George W. Bush has remained approximately $10,000 higher than it is in Germany under Schroeder over the past several years. Maybe when it comes to economic growth and prosperity, American cowboys are smarter than European sophisticates after all...

Capitalist Cowboys vs. Socialist Comrades: Unemployment: 5.2% vs. 12.0%

On unemployment the picture is much the same. German unemployment is more than double that of the United States. But that large difference is rarely mentioned in the German media.

"Amerikanische Verhältnisse": American "Locust" Companies Have Produced More Than Enough Jobs in the USA without Socialist Intervention. And if Bush is a 'Stupid Cowboy', what does that make Schroeder and Muentefering?
Sources: US Department of Labor, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

Some may defend Germany by pointing out that the high rate of unemployment in eastern Germany is the reason that the overall national rate is so high. It's true: Eastern Germany is a major burden on the German economy. But even if we ignore the east, unemployment in the west is still currently around 10%, almost double the current level in the US. Furthermore, unlike the US government, the German government isn't burdened with high military expenditures and hasn't had to directly deal with the consequences of the September 11 catastrophe and its aftermath.

But of course, SPIEGEL ONLINE and other German media outlets will largely continue to focus on the few stories that shed a negative light on the US economy despite the fact that America (with its "locust" private sector) is outstripping Germany on almost every economic level. A recent example was this negative SPIEGEL ONLINE article on working Americans without health insurance. Certainly, such critical stories are legitimate and necessary, but in order to achieve some balance, the German media must also put them into context by reporting on the many positive developments in the US economy and fairly comparing them to developments in the German economy.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens...

Update: Joe N. of No Pasaran! pointed out this excellent article in English on Muentefering and the "locus list" at Financial Times. Be sure to check it out.

German-American Attitude Differences

Source: Pew Global Attitudes, via "Global Opinion".

This 2004 multi-country survey nicely captures the differences in attitudes
between USA and Germany (and other European countries). German politics in the
last decades were increasingly aimed at collectivist solutions to economic
problems. The current campain of Germany's social democrats against
"anglo-saxon-style" capitalism underlines this trend.

(Hat tip Ian Mitchell. Ian is an Australian who lives in Berlin)

SPD Comrade Muentefering: International "Kapital" a Threat to Democracy

(By Ray D.)

In a speech given April 13 at an SPD forum on "Democracy, Participation, Future Sustainability and Justice," SPD party Chairman Franz Muentefering sharply criticized "the internationally growing power of capital and the total economization of short-winded trade for profit." He also lashed out at those calling for leaner government and less bureaucracy, accusing them of wanting to starve the state, which he sees as the great protector and guarantor of social democracy and democratic rights.

Here are the Muentefering money quotes:

"The internationally accelerated profit maximization strategies endanger our democracy long-term. (...)

Our critique is aimed at the internationally growing power of capital and the total economization of short-winded trade for profit. Because, through that, individual people and the future sustainability of entire firms and regions are lost from sight."

This is an absolutely fascinating statement from the chairman of the German SPD (Social Democrats), the party that currently runs Germany's coalition government. If Mr. Muentefering is so passionately concerned about the threat "short-winded trade for profit" poses to democracy worldwide, how can he explain SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's plans to lift the EU arms embargo on China?

Is that what Muentefering means when he talks about putting people (thousands of political prisoners imprisoned and put to death in China on a yearly basis) and democracy (oppressive Chinese dictatorship, Tiananmen Square massacre, threats against Taiwan) ahead of trade and profit?

How can he explain the billion dollar deals signed (so recently the ink still hasn't dried) to sell German trains to Russia while securing German access to Moscow's vast natural gas and oil supplies? Is that another example of putting the "future sustainability" of firms and regions (Yukos going bankrupt, Chechnya a disaster) and human rights (thousands raped, tortured, imprisoned, dead and missing) ahead of profit maximization?

Oh yeah...let's not forget Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. The SPD and the German left never get tired of attacking American politics and business dealings in the Middle East. But just over a month ago, SPD "peace" Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder visited the Arabian peninsula with 70 German business leaders for an entire week. Business deals worth hundreds of millions of Euros were signed for everything from tanks to trains to communications systems. Is that yet another example of the SPD's concern for democracy in the face of the growing menace of international capital? Did "social democracy" and human rights really matter to Gerd Schroeder and his entourage while the cash registers were loudly ringing down in the land of one-thousand-and-one nights?

Down with international capital and short-winded profit...up with Social-Democracy! Viva la Revolution!

Errr...Would you like another tank, high-speed train or chemical plant to go with that order, Mr. Dictator, Sir?

Or were they worried more about German jobs, German industry, German exports and the German tax base? It seems that "the internationally growing power of capital" is not such a bad thing after all...as long as German companies and the German government are the ones making the money. 

This much we know: The German left certainly has a remarkable aptitude for forgetting about human rights, democracy and social justice when it is convenient to do so. This is especially so when they are in power and German money and jobs are involved.

So let's get real comrades: SPD Chairman Muentefering's condemnation of "short-winded trade for profit" and "the internationally growing power of capital" is nothing but the desperate, tired and false rhetoric of a failed Socialist party that cannot see the prodigious extent of its own hypocrisy.

Update: Not surprisingly, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his "Superminister" in charge of the Economy and Labor Wolfgang Clement support Muentefering's rhetoric.

Over 5.2 Million Unemployed: Germany's Economic Tragedy Continues

(By Ray D.)

Gerhard Schroeder's Government Helpless in the Face of Record Unemployment

We already know: The SPD-Green government has been one unending disaster for German-American relations. Gerhard Schroeder's exploitation of war fears and anti-American sentiment in 2002 is the only reason his Socialist-Green government was able to cling to power. What has followed is unprecedented in German history. Schroeder's SPD quickly dropped into the 20s in the approval ratings and unemployment continued to rise above 4 million.

Now the most unpopular government in German history has achieved a new all-time low: Schroeder, who earlier demanded that the German people judge him on his ability to create jobs, currently presides over a nation with over 5.2 unemployed citizens, the highest number since the Nazis came to power during the Great Depression. Right-wing extremists are gaining strength with every passing day, but Schroeder and his party refuse to accept any implication that their failed economic policy is a direct or indirect cause of the re-emergence of German nationalism.

So what is the SPD's solution? German exports. Particularly arms sales. Gerhard Schroeder recently visited China and expressed his desire to lift the EU's arms embargo on the Communist nation. The "Peace" Chancellor is currently on a trip to the Middle East where he is sealing business deals in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other dictatorial Arab states. There too, German arms are a best seller. The same German left that can't get enough of pointing out America's supposed hypocrisy in supporting Saudi Arabia is busily signing weapons deals with the same government.

And even the German media, which has so often towed the government line, can no longer ignore the extent of Germany's economic tragedy. The usual excuses, that the unemployment is due to September 11 or that the numbers are due to statistical changes, now ring hollow. Even SPIEGEL ONLINE is describing the situation in Schroeder's government as one of "helplessness, perplexity and naked panic."

Schroeder's Wirtschafts-Blunder: No End in Sight

The worst part of it all: There seems to be no immediate recovery in sight. One has to admire the German peoples' patience with the profoundly incapable, incompetent government that has failed them year after year after year. In other nations, the SPD-Green coalition would have long received the boot.

The main two questions now seem to be: How much longer will Germany tolerate the SPD's economic debacle? When will the SPD finally be put under "massive pressure" by the German media for their obvious and profound failure?   

Only time will tell...