 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
well holland said no to eurocon
same as france
and now germans say no to violent reform
one could say it is clear that europe has no conscunus for doing the alterations DanS prohpesizes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Apparently it is, DanS. Mostly I think German voters want someone who'll stop big industry from cutting their vacation and forcing a 15% pay cut down their throats. I can't understand why anyone would ever think that decreasing the amount of money circulating in your economy is a good thing, but conservatives in the U.S. and Germany seem to think that screqwing the poor and middle classes will somehow benefit everyone.  What's even more amazing is the number of stupid people that fall for it. |
there are two questions Guev. One is whether fiscal stimulus is desirable, and would raise wage levels. Thats essentially academic as long as Germany is in the Euro zone, and its fiscal policy is constrained. Given that constraint, and the overall market situation that Germany faces, the question is whether their current wage levels, benefits, etc are compatible with increasing economic growth and reducing unemployment. There seems to be a broad consensus that they are not. There remain the questions of how to get to change, and how far to go.
Micha - IF changing technologies, outsourcing, etc lead to a decline in the demand for labor (which is itself a matter of disagreement) it doesnt necessarily mean a rise in unemployment - the market would "naturally"" respond to a decline in demand for labor for lowering wages until "full" employment is reached. For a variety of reasons, it has been argued, wages are "sticky" downward, and govt policies such as nationwide collective bargaining in Germany probably add to that. It is to be noted that the US, UK, and other industrial countries faced the same technological and trade changes, but without the persistent high unemployment, and with arguable impacts on wages.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
There is no good reason why country after country needs to surrender to the liberals. It's a stupid Hobson's choice, the prisoner's dilema. If one country sticks its ass in the air for capital, and the rest don't, then that country benefits, and the rest are hurt. If all countries stick their asses in the air, they are all hurt, but not as much as if they didn't. If no country stuck its ass in the air, we'd all be better off.
The German standard of living is what we should all aspire to have. We shouldn't cheer from the sidelines as the best labor conditions in the world are destroyed. That only means it's allowable for them to get worse here, and they will.
Germany is not as bad off as conservatives say, and at least the unemployed in Germany are treated better than the working poor in America, let alone the American unemployed.
Germany needs to go forward, not backwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:37
|
|
Well, wages aren't on the same level in the east. There was some movement towards same wages during the last years ( and it still is -- related to development of prices), but it isn't general standard, and certainly wasn't when the unification was made.
What Kohl did, and what has been often criticized since then was to change most saves of Eastern Germans 1 to 1 from their former Eastern German "DDR-Mark" to the West-German "D-Mark" (actually it was more complicated, a part was converted 1 to 1, the rest 2 to 1 IIRC) although most experts said this did not reflect the real value of the East German money.
Even more serious was his decision to finance all the costs of the unification via money from social systems, not via taxes or anything else. As an result work and jobs became much more loaded with costs, since here in Germany employers and workers pay a certain amount into those social security systems. Kohl hoped that a growing economy would be able to deal with this easily and made some great promises about "prospering landscapes" in the east.
But reality was different -- the (West-)German economy already had structural problems, their negative effects were only delayed a bit by the unification, because many Western companies were quick to gain new markets in Eastern Germany. OTOH most former state-owned Eastern "companies" broke down completely, some because they simply coulnd't survive the now much harder competition, others because of mismanagement later after the unification. Unemployment became higher and higher in the east, and due to the general weak performance of the economy later in the West too. The truth is that Kohl did hardly anything to reform the country, even when confronted with those problems. That has only started with Schroeder, although it is debatable how successful it was, and what future steps are needed, and if he's the right guy for this.
However, I think any government now has to continue with reforms, I don't think we can afford another leadership doing nothing for years. Of course without a clear mandate for any of the major parties it will be difficult.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-09-2005 09:19
|