


Between two nightmares


See article

Readers' comments



I would propose to "emperor" Charlemagne to read Rothbards book on the great American depression and what followed . We all know that dear Keynes did not appreciate the real meaning and essence of money . But than giving politicians the keys to the central bank is like handing the keys of your wine cellar to an alcoholic !

Carlo 1947

I personally don't like the Charlemagne's humor when the facts are serious, but this is part if the British attitude and I accept it.
Angela Merkel is a good poker gambler, but she has a little risk attitude, which is apparently in contrast with the first one.
She knows anyway how to solicit the German pride attitude called Nationalism, as she did last year in a long speech at the Bundestag, declaring that Germany was out of all inflation/stagnation risks and recalling as example the old German history.
The speech was a National success and her personal index flowed.
Now EU without the servant Sarkozy is different, she has to face reality not having any more her jolly joker.
Reality is that her politics against Greece failed and, with this failure, also her fame fallen.
Her denial that the German Banks were not involved in the Greek speculation was a lie, always suspected but confirmed by those Banks downgrading.
Now the game is over and she has to show her cards and her bluff.
So also next year election takes another flavor, even if she tries to burn the Socialist's cards making in advance the same reforms the Socialists were planning as part of their electoral campaign.
Her eastern experience comes out in those occasions, showing that she learned how to cheat her enemy, at her time with the immobilism, now playing smartly in advance the same cards her political adversary tells to be willing to play against her.
Honesty is not part of the political game.

Billy Bones

The cry for more economic growth at this time of record low interest can only come by government spending, which means higher deficits, and therefore aggravating the current situation. Mrs Merkel is absolutely correct when she demands fiscal discipline. Greece had plenty of warnings and plenty of time to start to get its house in order. Greece neither had the will nor the discipline to do that. It is interesting that out of all the news/magazine websites in the world, only here in Britain can we still read about Hitler mixed in with today's news and comments.

South American

It is allways forgotten, that Germany has a third nightmare. The keynesianism of Hitler. 1933 he started the printing press, robbed the German Yews, then he exploited the occupied contries. If Germans remember something, then more the keynesianism of Hitler.


Bloomsday, 16-6-12
‘Forcing Germany to accept higher inflation, as the Economist has been proposing for weeks will do nothing for Greece, a country which has structural problems. She has been covering these up with borrowed money.’ [Fahrettin Tahir]
Charlemagne wrote a stylish, balanced, and informative essay on a matter of huge topical interest,
Such abuse piled upon poor Charlemagne from the massed and serried ranks of the Germany for the Euro Cup Supporters' Club! I'm sure you're all very nice people, individually, but having read a few of these overheated repetitious rants, well – it’s very sad to say - I'm starting to understand why so many Europeans express such grave reservations about your no doubt very successful and very reunited land.
A careful read of Charlemagne’s last two paragraphs suggests that you chaps have got so carried away with frothing indignation that you have failed to note the obvious.
Charlemagne is appreciative of Germany’s ‘European’ credentials but critical of the French mind-set: (‘As a federal state, Germany can easily imagine shifting powers to Brussels. But such ideas will test France, where the Fifth Republic gives the president huge power.’) Charlemagne gently points out that political unions take time to accomplish but credit crunches need action now: ('Such fundamental changes would also require a rewriting of European treaties and perhaps even a new German constitution'). Charlemagne acknowledges that Angela Markel is caught on the horns of an uncomfortable dilemma: (‘Faced with the impossible choice of presiding over the chaos of the euro’s demise or guaranteeing trillions of euros’ worth of debt, Mrs Merkel can be forgiven for trying to muddle through’). Finally, finally, Charlemagne gets just a little bit naughty with a taunt: (‘But if Europe’s single currency became a museum curiosity, history would judge Mrs Merkel a failure, a bit like Mr Brüning’).
I read in Wiki, ‘Soon after Brüning took power, he was confronted by an economic crisis caused by the Great Depression. Brüning responded with a tightening of credit and a rollback of all wage and salary increases. These policies made him very unpopular and lost him the support of the Reichstag’.
I sense that the skip-readers of the Germany for the Euro Cup Supporters' Club might have felt victimised by what I’ll the ‘Brüning Issue’. Such sensitive souls, these soccer supporters!

Josh_US Lux in reply to Plazidus

@ Plazidus (1):

Do yourself a favor and don't quote selectively or people get the impression you're trying to fool them.

If quoted in context, my post to "Charlemagne" sounds entirely different than the excerpt you quoted. I'll repost it for your convenience below.

Germany is not my "fatherland", but my "motherland", btw - and I don't even live there. But it's easy to understand why the Germans et. al. got it right, and Greece et al. didn't.

Stop whining, start reforming.

It's not Merkel's fault Greece is such a corrupt pit and that Greeks have wasted 30 years of the highest per-capita EU subsidies instead of investing in their future. Look to Central and Eastern Europe if you need examples how the deed can be done.

Other than that, I would welcome if Greece left not only the euro zone, but the EU. It's impossible to tolerate a fraudulous member in a community based upon the shared respect for the law forever.

Josh_US Lux in reply to Plazidus

@ Plazidus (2):

Here's my full post to Charlemagne:




Dear author,




This is Europe, after all.



Josh_US Lux in reply to Plazidus

@ Plazidus:

In other words:

Don't expect shared liablity as long as you reject pooled sovereignty.

And Greece DOES reject pooling sovereignty - Germany does not.

Greeks want a free-ride at the expense of their euro zone peers, and they won't get it.

Plazidus in reply to Josh_US Lux

'Do yourself a favor and don't quote selectively or people get the impression you're trying to fool them.' [Josh]

I quoted the last 2 paras extensively and pretended nothing else.

'This is Europe, after all. Other than that, I'm waiting for The Economist's overdue renaming into "The Socialist". [Josh]

Obviously, you're no intellectual heavyweight, then.

Plazidus in reply to Josh_US Lux

Sorry if I offended you, Josh. If it makes you feel any better I, there are people around who blame 'the liberal paradigm'. Now that is A.O.C 'Chateau Bullshit-Plein-frontal' in a league of its own.

Gwitreg in reply to Plazidus


hey, that was why Merkel talk about war, it's NESSERAY for her to save the EU..., er hmm... she doesn't apply another recept but Brüning's one though, is it because the Germans like punishments?

Plazidus in reply to Gwitreg

I objet, Gwitty, to this herd of Hun supporters and their yah-boo debating style. That apart, shouldn't the French keep a VERY LOW PROFILE when approaching auntie Angela with the begging-bowl?

Gwitreg in reply to Plazidus

what begging bowl? ach Ja the eurobonds, and a free ECB... that's in case of Germany wants to save the euro, it seems that still is the rumor from Potzdam, with little concrete effect though ! Anyways why not entertaining the dream, while German banks are building their buffer and unload their junks into ECB, so that we share their losses, but not their gains !
Hollande, I suppose knows what Germany is scenarising, and he isn't passing the dishes...some are awating a big jump, or a german miracle

Plazidus in reply to Gwitreg


In a sense, you’re more than right in stating it’s about time Germany put her hand into her pocket, if Albrecht Ritschi of the LSE is to be believed:

‘Let’s recap. The Marshall Plan had an outer shell, the European Recovery Programme, and an inner core, the economic reconstruction of Europe on the basis of debt forgiveness to and trade integration with Germany. The effects of its implementation were huge. While Western Europe in the 1950s struggled with debt/GDP ratios close to 200%, the new West German state enjoyed debt/ GDP ratios of less than 20%. This and its forced re-entry into Europe’s markets was Germany’s true benefit from the Marshall Plan, not just the 2-4% pump priming effect of Marshall Aid. As a long term effect, Germany effortlessly embarked on a policy of macroeconomic orthodoxy that it has seen no reason to deviate from ever since.’


However, we keep coming back to the fact that the French state has not achieved a balanced budget for half a lifetime. This makes France a poor prospect. Auntie Angela should, ought to take charge; but who can blame her when she looks at such unpromising prospects as her nephews and nieces. Besides, that smarmy man on the phone from the Élysée going on about his ‘democratic mandate’ is so, so ‘unerträglich’ [unbearable to a sweet pastor's Toechterlein].

Gwitreg in reply to Plazidus

if it wasn't the euro/DM, and the ECB/Bundesbank, France wouldn't be in such a situation, much likely as a Britain bis, but in a better economical shape

The euro is dooming Europe

Morani ya Simba


It would be a mistake to push for a presidential model in any attempt to democracize the EU's institutions because when an EU president needed to do something unpopular to a member state, say raise the retirement age, he would be seen as a "foreign dictator" in that country if he had to, or was perceived to, act on his own democracit legitimacy. A parliament where the affected member state(s) also had representatives that could be heard, would have greater legitimacy and the parliament would share the responsibility between far more individuals, making it harder to use the as a psychological "face of the enemy." A president, on the other hand, would likely become exactly this.

maximus zeebra in reply to Ron in Malmo

Europe integrates fine, diversity is our strenght, unlike monoculture Americans.

Republicans, democrats? Conservatives, liberals? For or against? Winner takes it all? Mr elected dictator, everyone do the same..

Boring, with massive lack of inspiration and new ideas.

HsiungNuisance in reply to maximus zeebra

And a massive lack of knowledge about North America too. Monoculture? Pretty interesting when regional cultures and ethnic gens are rearing their heads in the US today. American Southerners and the GOP rump; American MidWest (albeit Mason-Dixon line has spread north significantly); etc., etc. There is a shared consumer culture, but that is a different matter. Its only monocultural if you count your diversity in cheeses.


“Critos, I owe a cock to Asclepius, will you remember to pay the debt?” Such was the last words of Socrates before his demise, according to account of Plato.

When it comes to fiscal responsibility, instead of waiting for a handout/ bailout, why can’t a nation, who is any nation, be totally responsible for its own acts or the lack of acts thereof just like in a business? There is no law, natural or man made, stipulating that a nation can not die of credit deficiency because of its own profligacy or wanton financial misbehavior (save foreign interference or aggression).

As such, any rescue should only be expected to come from those with vested interest of avoiding a loss or making a profit of the situation, and bear their respective share of risk of doing such rescue. In that sense, why should any nation, Germany included, be pressured or otherwise forced into doing the rescue not in accordance to its own terms?

La Fayette

Charlemagne is revisiting History in a very selective manner. Your claim that "it was not hyperinflation in the 1920s but depression and mass unemployment in the 1930s that propelled Hitler to power" is hard to reconcile with facts.
Fact 1: in April 1921 the victors imposed on Germany war compensation of 132 billion marks, a unbearable burden for the vanquished.
Fact 2: as soon as 1922, Hitler was already riding on general discontent;
Fact 3: on February 1923, France occupies Rhineland, provoking mass strikes;
Fact 4: (citing Allan Bullock "Hitler, A study in Tyranny"): "The Ruhr occupation gave the coup de grâce to the Mark. On July 1, 1923, the US$ was worth 160,000 Mark. It fell to 1 million on August 1, and 130 million on November 1." In that, the French occupation made the unemployment jump from 2% to 23%...
The question is: when cumulating the burden of the EFSF, the ESM, and Target, (through this last "non clearing" mechanism, southern countries are already siphoning off more than 600 bn € from Germany) aren't the former "victors" imposing the same burden on Germany, risking the same outcome as the French armed invasion in February 1923?

F R O Y in reply to La Fayette

You get the History right, but you're drawing all the wrong conclusions. Germany is far from bearing all the burden of EFSM. It contributes the most in absolute terms, but only because it is the largest economy and most populated state in the Union. In per capita terms there would be six other countries forking out more cash, just like as a share of GDP.

The right parallel with the 1920s can only be made portraying the "troika", with Germany at the forefront as the victors, and Greece as the beaten, humiliated and bankrupt vanquished state, complete with its own raising populist, racist, fascist political movement.

Germany should know better than anyone how dangerous it can be pushing a nation too far.

Gwitreg in reply to La Fayette

but Germany never paid what was decided in 1921, the reason why French and BELGIAN troops occupied the ruhr is precisely because there wasn't any other way to get something repaid, at least coal could replaced money. The mass strikes weren't caused by the French occupation itself, but rather because the Germans Military headquaters never acknowledged being responsible of the war, and were decided to oppose with whatever means that the reparations would be repaid. Strikes were convenient, and were alimented with a anti-French (and anti-Jew)propaganda, while millions of banknotes were printed and floaded into Ruhrland. This precisely the first steps that was ingeneering of the inflation, also because the war was financed by foreign loans (mainly americans), increasing inflation was a mean to repay less, but that was opening the evil can !

In 1922 Hitler was hardly known outside a bunch of crasy demagogues and former angry military, he tried to head a putch on Bavaria, that ended in jail.



Luftwaffe in reply to Gwitreg

"but Germany never paid what was decided in 1921"

Because the reparations were intentionally designed to totally cripple Germany.
It simply couldn't be repaid even if Germany wanted to.

Gwitreg in reply to Luftwaffe

like yours in 1870 were ment to totally cripple France, and to become a opportune manna for the new born german Industry

hmm you forget that you ruined France and Belgian industry, mines, and agriculture for years, that a couple of million inhabitants lost their inhabitations and were displaced without any means for earning their life... while Germany's Industry, agriculture, housing remain in perfect sanity

it seems that euphemism and Alzheimer desease is a well shared behaviour across the Rhein

Luftwaffe in reply to Gwitreg

Not "mine" and I/we didn't ruin France.

You cannot really compare 5 billions francs (payed by France as reparations after the 1870 war) and 269 billion gold marks (= 100,000 tonnes of pure gold) imposed by the Allies on Germany as reparations after WWI.

Gwitreg in reply to Luftwaffe

5 billions Gold francs corresponded to 25% of France GDP of the era, wich largely exceed Germany war expenses
269 billions (that Germany never paid), can hardly correspond to a gold mark and or a gold franc value of 1870 though
it's not your war of course, but your grand-fathers'
you didn't ruin France? we had to repay Americans for their contribution to the war too, German war reparations were also ment to repay France, Britain Belgium loans to the US whose contribution is estimated ~46% of the US GDP of the era, and for their contribution to the reconstruction of our ruined industry


It’s meanwhile typical for British publications, concerning Germany, to bend historic facts to further a wider political agenda.

Charlemagne is quite obviously part of this British plot to disparage Germany’s past and present, as (again) the following sentence indicates:

“Mrs Merkel can be forgiven for trying to muddle through. But if Europe’s single currency became a museum curiosity, history would judge Mrs Merkel a failure, a bit like Mr Brüning.”

We don’t think so, Charlemagne!

The New York Times wrote March 12, 1922 under the title “Changes in Reichsbank” and the subtitle (Allied) “Program of German Government for Relinquishing Public Control”.

(Quote): “The Government has drafted a bill embodying the Allies demand for ‘autonomy’ of the Reichsbank. The bill abolishes the existing Supervisory Board under the Presidency of the German Chancellor, which, since 1875, has been the highest guiding force in the bank’s policy.
The new bill transfers the board’s function to a simple directorate, which henceforce is to have sole power and responsibility. The government loses the right to influence the central bank’s policies.” (end-quote).

BTW, from mid 1923 on, the members of this ‘directorate’ were international financiers approved or even ‘appointed’ by the allied powers, with the main goal to guarantee the continuation of war reparation payments, which were denominated in ‘gold-mark-equivalent’, so that they couldn’t be ‘inflated away’ by the German government. This was still the Reichsbank’s condition during the Bruening administration.

Thus, it's a British fairy tale that Bruening was responsible for the deflationary measures of the Reichsbank at that time.

Wilhelm Röpke in reply to la.výritý

Your are right concerning the circumstances under which those cuts were made.

It was the time as the gold standard was implemented. Other countries "devaluated" their currencies against the gold standard (by loosing their currency's binding to the gold standard) which Germany was denied (Young Plan). Actually, this was a devaluation of the Sterling.

The outcome was that those countries (England) gained competitiveness and moreover eased their debt burdens. Consequently that put Germany at a huge disadvantage.
It was England that denied Germany repaying its reparations in "devaluated" Reichsmark. And once more it was England that urged the US not making a memorandum.
England wanted to blind on the eye to German problems whereas England faced the same objectives - debts.

At the end - Germany was forced (it was the only way) to implement devaluation in order to make sure that reparations were paid and Germany can survive. England was in fully knowledge what their policy would mean for Germany and the Germans. Hence - they wanted Germany tear apart. At last the US understood Germany's desperate situation and against Britain's will the US eased the burdens temporarily.

Today it is very sad that England does not remember its action and policies taken against Germany. Maybe there is a lack. Well, it must be viewed as TE intended to demagogue by light the spot light just on singled out facts which are just and only in British favor. Sir, you did no good job.

Gwitreg in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

"Suddenly the French are going to be nice? Mrs. Merkel should be aware."

this isn't a question of being nice or not, but of defending a point of view that is different of what Merkel has as far as inter-EZ governments relations are, and not displaying orders and punishments from her Emperess throne, but discussing with alter-equal partners that represent countries that have a longer history than Germany.

BTW, JM Ayrault, what a magnific "langue de bois"

Gwitreg in reply to la.výritý

Already in 1922 Germany was compressing its production costs for outperferming France's


and german corporations were doing well


Funnily the spirit of the involved people was quite the same as it is today, the Germans always pointing on France what whatever was going wrong:


It seems that there was a economical crisis for UK in 1922 too


oh and the US tried to benefit of the situation:


Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Gwitreg

I do not understand why you wrote:
Defending points of view. Hmm, let me see.... is the point of view aiming that Europe losts its position in the world? Then we should go on as Mr. Holland did.
Just more spending will not correct the imbalances and deficits in the euro zone's current accounts. Polemic is one, blaming the other side.
However, Europe seems to be ruled by ignorance and denial today.
Just let me say: Growth will not balance current accounts deficits.
Only cuts and withholding in consumption, combined with devaluation can.
Sad but true.
History: It is enough that we prevailed over the mass murder and warmonger Napoleon. Were they not Germans, those, once defeated Rom and freed their soil?
Brave men whereas French men and women were murdered and enslaved by Romans.
Yes, yes, of course - all nations have a longer dated history than Germany.
Check history if you are a European and please get back to topic.

chocerady in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

Do you realise that Germany is now carrying out the same policy towards Greece that you think was so wrong when imposed on Germany by the allies and Greece didn't start a war so you don't even have that excuse.
It seems pretty obvious that it is Merkel who has not learned the lessons of the thirties.

Gwitreg in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

Really, what place EUrope had/has? it doesn't seem that anyone cares to ask her opinion, but rather to ask Britain, France...Germany
Though I know what you mean, the Germans keep on repeating us that a EUrope union is necessary to conter big powers such as the US, China... as a economy that would compete with them, first Europe has no army to defend her sea lanes and markets, whose currency would be worth of the US 7th float for the dollar, and that contracts with afar contries are bilateral, did Germany propose to her EZ partners to share the deal that she made with China? Which countries Germany sided at the UN?
Germany used the argument of concurrence with the big powers to bait us into the decoy of being partners of the big game, but doesn't want to share the pawns, she rather wants us under control, one doesn't know, might be that the Italians and or the French could get attractive contracts
BTW Hollande isn't a anonym person, he represents France, and still France means something for 300 million Americans, to billions of Chinese, to Million of Africans, of latin Americans... while Europe? the buffoons Barroso/Rompuey ? they were mocked by Putin latly, la Ashton? who is she? no foreigns offices knows what she is ment for !
yeah, spending, spending, it's the only word that we hear from Germany these days, but when we help her to pay her reunification, none of us were telling "I want my money back", cuz we contribuated to the EU budget with a bigger part, and our credits loans rates increased significantly, thing that Germany doesn't want to back to EZ members today, of course, they aren't Germans, the poors !
"only cuts and withholding in consumption"
Ja, stimmt ! in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, it works all right, more enterprises are closing down, more unemployment, more suicides... but you did try this cure in the early thirties, and you didn't like it too, and you voted for the lunatic Messie that brought you into the biggest nightmare, think about, you're preparing the ground in Europe for such extreme salviors again
"combined with devaluation can.Sad but true."
er hmm, but that's precisely what the Bundesbank doesn't want, and of course Merkel too !
"It is enough that we prevailed over the mass murder and warmonger Napoleon."
Mass murder? what a villan escuse for a German !
Napoleon's war collateral dammages, hmm nothing to be compared with Hitler and Stalin, Napoleon never plotted mass genocides because of race and nation, the high death toll concerned more the french soldiers for the most, and foreign soldiers, and in a longer period, about 20 years, while Hitler in 4 years...
"Were they not Germans, those, once defeated Rom and freed their soil?"
so what? finally you ended to learn latin too !
"Brave men whereas French men and women were murdered and enslaved by Romans"
Sorry, but French men and women didn't exist at this period, they were different celt tribes, all , more or less antagonist to each other, but nonetheless resisted to Cesar, everheard of Vercingetorix?
"Check history if you are a European and please get back to topic."
LMAO, I'm but on Hisory facts and on topic !

Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Gwitreg

Mr. Hollande represents now a different France. So I will go in calling Hollande and not France. Because its his policy made.
Well, I know that we have no European army - BECAUSE Europe is no state.
Furthermore, when it comes to economics, there are huge objectives ahead.
If we are heading for the French and Italian route the euro zone would even more lost its competitiveness. And it the FREE will of Italian becoming to expensive.
Non were forced by Germany to increase wages or to consume more than it can afford.
I only speak about the euro zone and not about the EU. So get back to that.
You referred to the 30s. It was a different time. However, the outcome was not good. The action taken was to hard withing a short time. But it was a different time and there were different circumstances under which to decisions were made.
Today we can learn that the cuts need time and we should ease the timeframe for those countries. Nevertheless, there is no other means than inner devaluation.
Despite all what is on the table because it is the only way reducing deficits in the current accounts. Whatever Mr. Hollande would like to - economy is working in that way. And if Mr. Hollande is unable to finance its election-promises than France should take efforts that it can afford it. But not by using Germany's credit card. The same with the rest of the euro zone. That leads us who forced whom into the euro. Well, I am pleased to inform you that the Germans opposed the euro and we still do - today. Germany never wanted the single currency at that moment. However, it was France that forced Germany into this mess because the French were afraid of the united Germany and its economical power. I know that all members of the government-then denied it - but actually the documents released show it that way. Therefore, I do not understand and accept your argument. Germany did not force any country into the single currency but was forced into it itself. Germany's view was that the single currency is the last step, the crown of a European process of unity. And as France forced us into that mess our opinion was that is too early and it might fail.
You focus just on Germany's fault although it has been different. Why do you not address those which are responsible? It seems to be a behaving of our time today.
Coloring facts in favor of one's own angle of view. We all agreed upon treaties and Germany was assured and promised: no-bail-out. That was the core, the heart the one and only reason Germany was willing to give up the Deutsche Mark. Despite some other clauses in the contracts which were broken. It was no-bail-out which counts. But France urged Germany bailing-out its banks in 2010. If Germany will not, France will reintroduce its Franc. That would have meant the end of Europe. Hmm, now history becomes interesting. Ja, but for all the mess France is in, Germany must be blamed because Frau Merkel was elected as France president as well.
It seems that I missed something. And what did Germany? Germany broke the no bail-out clause because France is our best and closest friend and Germany have not wanted to let France down. Do I hear any thank you Frau Merkel?
I just repeat it because too many demagoguing facts in their favor and exclude facts. France could not afford a bail-out of its banks. Germany did and jumped in. And ja, ja, ja, we also bail-out German banks - so what? I am sooo sorry that Germany bailed-out German banks - as the US did concerning American banks.
No foreign country gave Germany money for setting up Eastern Germany.
What was retrieved from Brussels - was not any different than what Italy for its South took. Never forget Germany pays huge amounts in and just withdraw a little of it. More self-fished are the Brits and hey I forgot the French.
I am very sorry that we sometimes think on German's interests.
We took out NO debts from countries. But we had net capital imports for a few years. That's all. Germany itself has earned the money it spent for the reunification as you can see in the current accounts. I think you have rather misunderstood something.

Gwitreg in reply to Wilhelm Röpke


cry me a river, you Germans are never assuming your decisions, it's always the other's fault !

that's the most shared lie by the Germans, Kohl was but for the euro, it was a nightmare to manage Eastern Germany modernisation without the EU funds, that were floading there like in the new EU member Spain (still today the EU funds toward Germany are the double of what France gets), for that Kohl needed to press for more EU, hence the euro event, which was already programmed, since the seventies for Brussels, since a couple of years for Germany, Delors was working with the Bundesbank frame before that the Berlin wall was teared down, and, even, if really the Germanz hadn't wanted the euro, they could still have vetoed it at the Bundestag, and in Karlsruhe, like they know how to do when they don't want to endorse a EU proposition that isn't a german initiation, they didn't oppose the euro, why?

yes, I know, it's never Germanz' fault

Now that the German reunification is a decades anniversary, and that Eastern Germany is modernised, when will Germany quit the EZ? cuz she doesn't need to show what a good girl she has become since 1945 !

check der Spiegel 8/05/2012, it's all about Kohl declassified documents !


which credit card? Hollande will make the same policy that Sarkozy did, he is just giving a few bone to the people that brought him into the office, and these tiny steps aren't ruining the sheme, did you know that the french bonds never were bought at such a good auction since the beginning of the world money crisis, 2007/2088? So, there isn't a negative effect because of Hollande, he is rather supported by the WS plebe.


Germans propaganda ! It's the Bundesbank that wrote the ECB rules



"Hey, Germany: You Got a Bailout, Too"


and, Germany's debt was almost absolved in 1953:


Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Gwitreg

Ignorance I could accept but denial makes it very hard. Euro against reunification. That was the deal and France made its option. You cited Spiegel. There you go.

Moreover, differ between EU and euro. If u were right why is Germany the biggest net contributer to the EU? France takes more out than Germany does. Check it or provide facts.

Hollande made promisses which he knew he would be unable to afford and furthermore put the French economy at a disadvantage and thus make France even more expensive.

What is new that we bailed out German banks as others did as well.

Just refer to facts. No need to offend.

Gwitreg in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

the biggest net EU contribuator, of course 80 million inhabitants contribuating to VAT, that is the main ressource for EU budget vs 65 million inhabitant for france

but you still get the top five EU funds, (France gets half of what Germany gets)


Hollande will be summoned soon to revert to a more realist policy, but I doubt that Berlin would be the voice that will make the French change, since Merkel is mostly looking at her re-election agenda, and at german interests.


It's bettr to work on reverting the euro to the former currencies, it will less harm the european populations

Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Gwitreg

I believe you know that you just once more provided a piece of the true.
I would really appreciate if you had proofed your facts. Net contribution is (nearly) all a country contributes to the EU budget and what it (nearly) all receives from the EU budget. You just referred to one part of it. Put it in your words that exactly is propaganda.
So in German that you understand that France more benefits than Germany - I trust in you that you will provide facts in future.
Nettozahlerdebatte [Bearbeiten]
Nettozahler und -empfänger 2009 (operative Haushaltssalden, gerechnet in Euro absolut). Da 2009 rückwirkend für 2007 ein neuer Eigenmittelbeschluss (EMB 2007) in Kraft trat, kam es in diesem Jahr für einige Staaten zu einmaligen Nachzahlungen, die in der Grafik nicht herausgerechnet sind.
Eines der wichtigsten Konfliktfelder um den EU-Haushalt ist die sogenannte Nettozahlerdebatte, also die Diskussion darüber, wie viel ein Land zum EU-Haushalt beiträgt und wie viel umgekehrt aus dem EU-Haushalt wiederum in dieses Land fließt. Wer mehr einzahlt als er herausbekommt ist ein Nettozahler. Die Nettozahlung bewirkt eine Umverteilung von Finanzmitteln und letztendlich auch Wohlstand. Diese Debatte prägt insbesondere in den Nettozahler-Ländern wie Deutschland, den Niederlanden und dem Vereinigten Königreich, die mehr Geld in den Haushalt einzahlen als sie daraus zurückerhalten, die Diskussion um den EU-Haushalt allgemein.[56]
And I would like you, now, accepting facts and stop making propaganda.
Which country receives from the EU the most in total amount?
Which country contributes the most to the EU budget in net and per person?
Moreover I would recommend to study and accept facts - which provides you an overview who net paid in more in general:
We should go ahead with facts from 2001:
I would just conclude - Germany pays in the EU budget by far more than France.
However, France receives from the EU budget by far more than Germany. Therefore France received through the EU help for years and has benefited from Germany's wallet.
I urge you to stop single out facts which are in your favor and be proofed to be wrong. You can check but France benefits more than Germany from the EU.
And no Mr. Hollande is not going to make a realistic policy rather than one on credit.
As we do not intend to pay for Mr. Holland promises during his election it would be the best Europe would go back to its currencies-then.

Gwitreg in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

ach Ja, take official sources instead of papers that have sided opinions, and that even can't align the same numbers


Germany... 21 189.9

France.... 19 075.6

Italy..... 14 517.6

UK ........12 918.3


EU subsidiaries:


Germany.. 26.339,8

France... 14.318,9

UK....... 10.613,2


If you want a serious discussion try to rely on OBJECTIVE sources

you're a buffoon

Wilhelm Röpke in reply to Gwitreg

Once more you just picked out ONE part of the EU budget.
It is sad but true that THIS is the COMPLETE budget which also includes cohesion.

Furthermore, if you would compare net contributions - how many is payed in the EU budget overall and payed out to the country from the EU budget - it has been Germnany as the biggest contributor as it is shown here:

I would actually recommend you to acknowledge facts. And those figures show, btw they are from the commission, which country payed more in than it received back from the EU budget. I think - even for you - today, it should be clear.

In this document, on page 252, the Expenditure listed.

Everybody would appreciate if your facts provided were not singled out and narrowed towards one part of expenses or even refer to ONE year as 2009 which is in favor for France however an overview from 2000 to 2010 provides a different and objective outcome. So you can see:

"The table shows Member States' net contributions to the EU’s annual budget for the period from 2000 to 2010. The list has been compiled by the Commission, and it should be noted that the list of which countries are net contributors or net beneficiaries can be calculated differently with other amounts as the result"


massel tov in reply to Gwitreg

only professional counterfeiters of history assert that germany
w a n t e d the €. they where forced to it (mitterand) for beeing allowed to reunite.the majority of the europeans know that (the educated ones, it is).
so stop your lying tirades.

mvr36 in reply to Wilhelm Röpke

Mass murderer Napoleon? Warmonger? The real warmongers were the British Empire and the real oppressors were the anti-liberal and anti-freedom and anti-equality military and aristocratic feudal lords of Prussia and Austria and of course the slave state known as the Russian Empire. I'd rather be a farmer in Napoleonic France than in aristocrat elite feudal Prussia or Austria or a serf in Russia.

Gwitreg in reply to massel tov

yeah and your sister beat the drums !


(page available in english too)

"The European Union—and the euro by default—can in a way trace their founding ideology to a speech made in 1949 by Paul G. Hoffman (1891 1974), then president of the Studebaker auto company and an administrator of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC). The OEEC (which later became the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) was responsible for planning and implementing the Marshall Plan, which was put in place to aid the recovery of Western Europe following World War II. Hoffman set forth a plan that called for the "integration of the European economy." He told OEEC members that "the substance of integration would be the formation of a single large market within which quantitative restrictions on the movement of goods, monetary barriers to the flow of payments, and eventually all tariffs are permanently swept away."

The European Union, however, can trace its lineal beginnings to the 1951 signing of the Treaty of Paris by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany, which established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC was a single common market covering iron ore, coal, scrap metal, and steel. The success of the ECSC led to the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Atomic Energy Commission and the European Economic Community. In 1967 the governing agencies of these three organizations merged to form the European Community. In 1978 the European Council, which was the principal policymaking organ of the European Community, agreed to the establishment of the European Monetary System (EMS). The purpose of the EMS was to stabilize exchange rates between member countries, while being responsible for the stability of a common unit of artificial currency—known originally in 1974 as the European unit of account, but which soon came to be called the European currency unit (ECU). The ECU was backed by pooling specified amounts of member nations' currencies into a "basket." In 1995 the ECU became known as the euro. Although the term "ECU" made sense as an expression in English, it had no basis of meaning in any other European language. Germany proposed the term "euro" be combined with the name of each national currency as a suffix. In this case the new unit of currency would be known as "euro-mark," "euro-franc," "euro-lira," etc., but ultimately the simple "euro" won out."


BTW, your "chaps" were the funding fathers too:



What a joke. What do you want the Grmans to do? Bailout a hundred million people and pay for their sins?
German population is doing fine but they work for it and they are not all so rich that they can afford to bailout the entire Southern Europe. Regardless of how flexible Merkel becomes, she can't save everyone. This is not about a little inflation fear. This is about severe fundemental shortcomings of entire nations that the Economist wants Germans to pay.

FreedomUSA in reply to FreedomUSA

The Economist appears to be at very ease with throwing other peoples' money around. Is it possible for its Editor to explain the hostility to Germany and the reasons for its constant insistence of Germany bailing out Europe?
Why doesn't it call for the UK to bailout Greece and Cyprus or Spain?

F R O Y in reply to FreedomUSA

Germany doesn't have to bailout anyone. That must be done by the EU as a whole. Germany just happens to be blocking that possibility, condemning the Union to collapse. Quite a foolish play, considering that Germany sells 60% of its exports within the EU and over 40% within the Eurozone, and that Germany's economy is basically export-driven, its internal consumption depressed after decades of austerity and stagnant salaries. Solidarity is in Germany's own interest.

Dapples in reply to F R O Y

Don't forget their poodle the Netherlands in this regard. Even worse then the Germans.
* Totally dependend on export
* Start blaming everybody but themselves once the shit hits the fan (when everything goes great the are very social though...).
* They assume it is normal when they (and the Germans) can get loans for almost no interest...
* They block every possible move to a sollution saying that these totally broke countries should "do it themselves"

With friends such as these, who needs enemies?

Jerry from Brooklyn

The last months have witnessed quite a few advises in the Economist to mrs. Merkel on what to do about the Euro crisis. It is easy to tell her what to do when you are no member of the Euro zone yourself and have all the benefits of the common market with the single currency, without the burden of paying debts of other countries. Ask Texas if it is willing to pay the debts of California to save the US dollar. Ask the UK if it is willing to join Germany and the other creditor states in paying debts of other EU members for the sake of keeping access to the common market. If mrs. Merkel demands political integration in exchange for financial integration, I think she is perfectly justified. There is no free lunch !


The weekly ritual continues. The Economist can't go beyond namecalling and spurious historical references. Instead we get strokes with the broadest brush in the palette. Print more money. Those bad Germans. Political failure. Now we're a Brüning. What's next? Godwin's law?
It would be more enlightening to have a long term perspective. What will Europe look like in five years if debt is mutualised without any oversight and reforms in the debtor countries? How in ten years? What will these countries make now that their competitiveness and manufacturing industries have been destroyed by the Euro? Will money printing magically revive their industries or will this only lead to wasteful consumption, a pampered financial and political elite, and unsustaibable debt levels?
I sometimes take pleasure reading TE archives. It's quite funny how the Economist has never seen the problems with debt financed fake "growth". Articles from 2000 expect a debt-free U.S. by 2010 because the dot-com bubble was simply extrapolated. Ditto for the real-estate bubble of the past decade and currently the biggest and most destructive bubble in human history, called "The Chinese Economy" (OTOH regarding India we've recently read some sensible insights).
It appears that the historical failure will not be Mrs. Merkel, but The Economist, along with its namesake profession of believers in short-term debt magic.

FreedomUSA in reply to Kridd

I couldn't agree more. It appears that The Economist is now possessed by the ghost of a fake jM Keynes or a greek politician. say fake because even Keynes wouldnt call for Germans to throw good money after bad. Something has happened to TE since 2008.

sanmartinian in reply to FreedomUSA

to FreeedomUSA

who wrote:

...Something has happened to TE since 2008.

Fully agree with you if you accept a small correction:

...since April 2006 when John Micklethwait replaced Bill Emmott as Editor in Chief and changed TE into the mouth piece of big financial interests, mainly American.


The identity neurotic and challenged - like the failed French president of yore, the one who even spent ludicrous sums of public money on MINISTRIES to decide and tell people who they were (whether they liked the identity foisted on them or not, and apparently like the president itself, to be deifned as fundamentally CHRISTIAN, but strangely not practisingly so, which is all rather weird to me!) - and presuming of course that, like the president itself perhaps, these neurotics onder identity challenge weren't in any way sure (are they 'Christian'? Do they go to church? Regularly? or whatever?) - STILL have to explain to us plain voters with EU citizenships, what exactly the point of nationalism is, especially in the medium term, and even more so in the longer term.

The Germans as a community of blood-identified citizens, seem more as if they have learned very well that nationalism is now pretty useless, as well as being absurdly pointless.

And that even if they cannot explain coherently and explicitly what is so utterly 'Christian' about Christian Democracy, or what is 'Socially uniting' for Christian Social Union.

You can be secure in your own identity without any of the claptrap of 'solidarity' for in-groups, 'social unions' and other imagined communities, where you get all touchy-feely, clappy-happy, luvvie-duvvie just because people you choose to have around you have the same bureaucratic and institutional status, regardless of their personality and behaviour.

They've understood it seems, the crucial point that identity is about communication between self and other, 'us' and 'them', and that can be in any of the hugest variety of languages.

An EU based on the German conception of federalism is not a bad way to go for most, in my view.

But I'm sceptical that the nationalists of the EU can possibly stomach this.
Who is even discussing it?
But these self-appointed racial, religious 'nationists' have always been its bane.
Unless bent by economics.

Spot on Charlemagne.

Public Dude

Would the Economist write an article on why the Euro is still riding high despite all the gloom and doom? Would not the currency drop in value when the countries using it are in trouble? A lower Euro would help Europe export its way out of its troubles to a certain extent.



Depends on your expectations for success. Do you think Mrs Merkel is responsible for *Europe*, or for *Germany*?

Free clue: Europe didn't elect Mrs Merkel. If you want her to be responsible for Europe, you need to put her in charge of Europe, not just in charge of Germany. Are you advocating that? Is France?

Didn't think so.


>>"But if Europe’s single currency became a museum curiosity, history would judge Mrs Merkel a failure, a bit like Mr Brüning."<<

Hardly a failure but the one who made the hard decision to pull the plug under that insanity and not go along with it endlessly.

That decision might be unpopular with some countries elites but very popular with most of the Europeans and especially the Germans.

Who exactly will blame Mrs. Merkel for what will be decided by history but I have a good guess!


Fascinating how German (or pro-Merkel) commentators are in denial.

There's a possibility that IT, SP (and FR) will capitulate fast and leave the euro as fast, with great damage to the German economy but still.

If not, or perhaps in any case, the market hounds will start chasing Germany - who wants to have money in a country about to be dragged in the epic collapse of the Italian debt? and will not print money to ensure it can pay back?

And guess what? Now others can play the Merkel brinkmanship game: oh, I am so worried about the stability of German banks but oh no, no political union, that's medium term. So worried about the bunds, dear markets, are you really sure to keep your money in Frankfurt when London will print money if things get to rough?

We'll see how that turns out. She's lost, let's see if she can come to her senses fast enough.

penny-wise and pound-fool never worked

adrastheia in reply to Explorer71

The Financial Markets always chase those with bad-debt, as they are doing now.

Debt in itself isn't bad. It's what you use the borrowed money for that determines if it's “bad-debt” or “good-debt” …

Good-debt can best be described as “investment debt” that boosts productivity and income. Bad-debt is debt that doesn't lead to additional future revenue, productivity or profits. In essence it's purely consumptive in nature.

Germany (and other northern countries) made the right choice. The larger part of their debt is good-debt. If the EU/Eurozone wants to survive the Latin countries will have to do the same and stop accumulating bad-debt.

Yankee Kid

Everyone should know that you have to control the money before you can control the ammount. Then you should ask yourself what is best for Europe, one currency for all of Europe, or a different curency for each country in Europe in today's world, and cut out the crap of WW-ll which we are none of us are going to let happen again. The truth is Europe cannot compete in todays world as a bunch of little countries who can't get along together. It's time for a changs. Get busy and don't look back and we will be with you.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events