4 ms·

Right but the fact that it cut it's unemployment in half in 5 years time while the rest of the world sank into a depression leads you to ask what they were doin

Right but the fact that it cut it's unemployment in half in 5 years time while the rest of the world sank into a depression leads you to ask what they were doing that caused that. The fact that "what Merkel was doing" was moving the country away from Socialism contradicts the initial assertion that "Germany is a socialist as a nation comes and they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world"

Daishiman 16y ago
I'll agree that many of Merkel's measures are not "socialist", but let's also keep perspective and realize that her measures do not shift the underlying social dynamics away from modern socialism's tenets, and that the changes appear as a general global trend of globalization and an aging population that makes maintaining the benefits more difficult than before. Considering the fact that many countries have paid a much, much heftier price on their social welfare than Germany and have not improved substantially means that the balance need not shift as much as many people claim.
lkrubner 16y ago
Without a very precise definition of "Socialism" it is hard to engage in this conversation at a serious level. Germany has a number of features that people from English speaking, Common Law countries might find surprising. Germany still has the "co-determination" laws that gives every union an automatic seat on the Board Of Directors of large firms, and it has laws that make it mandatory that any company with more than 300 workers have one union member work full time on matters relation to those decisions that come under the review of the co-determination laws, including all hiring and firing. Germany still has laws that would seem extremely pro-union from the perspective of, say for instance, the USA. In Germany it is still assumed that the state should play a leading role in managing the interface between industries, schools and the apprenticeship programs. In Germany, the social safety net is extremely rich compared to English speaking nations such as England, Canada, the USA, New Zealand or Australia. To go 20 years without working a job, living on welfare, is common in some areas, especially in the still-recovering East. Education remains heavily subsidized. It is extremely difficult for a firm to fire anyone. I would prefer it if people in this thread could avoid lazy labels like "capitalist" or "socialist" and instead speak specifically about what policies you think help or hinder German competitiveness. I have trouble imagining that anyone would look at Germany and see it as a model of what an economy can do when the government does nothing - rather, in Germany, the government is everywhere. The state plays a leading role in all aspects of civil society. This does not mean that private sector players have no influence, however, the role of the state is large. I'm uncertain what the original author may have meant by this: "Germany is a socialist as a nation comes and they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world" However, if you recall the debates that happened in Britain and the USA during the 1970s, Germany raises many interesting questions. Both Thatcher and Reagan came to power in a political environment where the labor unions were blamed for the competitive decline of Britain and the USA, respectively. Given the very strong unions in Germany, and Germany's competitiveness, some revision of the 1970s debate in the English speaking countries seems warranted. Apparently it is possible to have very strong labor unions and yet remain competitive.

Daishiman 16y ago

I'll agree that many of Merkel's measures are not "socialist", but let's also keep perspective and realize that her measures do not shift the underlying social dynamics away from modern socialism's tenets, and that the changes appear as a general global trend of globalization and an aging population that makes maintaining the benefits more difficult than before. Considering the fact that many countries have paid a much, much heftier price on their social welfare than Germany and have not improved substantially means that the balance need not shift as much as many people claim.

lkrubner 16y ago

Without a very precise definition of "Socialism" it is hard to engage in this conversation at a serious level. Germany has a number of features that people from English speaking, Common Law countries might find surprising. Germany still has the "co-determination" laws that gives every union an automatic seat on the Board Of Directors of large firms, and it has laws that make it mandatory that any company with more than 300 workers have one union member work full time on matters relation to those decisions that come under the review of the co-determination laws, including all hiring and firing. Germany still has laws that would seem extremely pro-union from the perspective of, say for instance, the USA. In Germany it is still assumed that the state should play a leading role in managing the interface between industries, schools and the apprenticeship programs. In Germany, the social safety net is extremely rich compared to English speaking nations such as England, Canada, the USA, New Zealand or Australia. To go 20 years without working a job, living on welfare, is common in some areas, especially in the still-recovering East. Education remains heavily subsidized. It is extremely difficult for a firm to fire anyone. I would prefer it if people in this thread could avoid lazy labels like "capitalist" or "socialist" and instead speak specifically about what policies you think help or hinder German competitiveness. I have trouble imagining that anyone would look at Germany and see it as a model of what an economy can do when the government does nothing - rather, in Germany, the government is everywhere. The state plays a leading role in all aspects of civil society. This does not mean that private sector players have no influence, however, the role of the state is large. I'm uncertain what the original author may have meant by this: "Germany is a socialist as a nation comes and they're one of the most prosperous countries in the world" However, if you recall the debates that happened in Britain and the USA during the 1970s, Germany raises many interesting questions. Both Thatcher and Reagan came to power in a political environment where the labor unions were blamed for the competitive decline of Britain and the USA, respectively. Given the very strong unions in Germany, and Germany's competitiveness, some revision of the 1970s debate in the English speaking countries seems warranted. Apparently it is possible to have very strong labor unions and yet remain competitive.