Germany invented socialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were Germans. The Social Democratic movement that shaped the modern European welfare state also originated in Germany. Although the country profited greatly from its reintegration into the world trading system after World War II, Germany never really came to terms with Anglo-Saxon capitalism, and skepticism about it still runs deep.
Now, with Germany's economy no longer functioning smoothly, capital moving abroad and unemployment rising, criticism of capitalism is again gaining momentum. The public is upset about top managers' salaries and the fact that big German companies fire workers despite record profits. In response, the government has urged managers to publish their incomes and abolished the bank secrecy laws that were once considered sacrosanct.
This new critique of capitalism recently culminated in a series of attacks by the leader of the Social Democratic Party, Franz Muentefering. He accused entrepreneurs who outsource production to low-wage countries of showing excessive greed and lack of social responsibility, and he compared the managers of international equity funds to a plague of locusts that occupy companies, exploit them, and move on after their destructive work is done.
These attacks brought Muentefering vast public support and triggered a major debate. Germany's media largely supports the critique. Guenter Grass, a Nobel Prize winner in literature, joined the chorus of critics, complaining about the fading of political power in a time of globalization. He ridiculed today's conditions as "stock-market defined liberty."
Opposition leaders do not like the subject, but they avoid challenging it. Only a few economic journalists and university professors are willing to object. One Jewish professor at a Munich university actually compared Muentefering's language to Nazi slogans. Entrepreneurs and managers swallow their anger and show their disapproval only by silently speeding up their relocation decisions.
But Muentefering has a point. Abolition of taxes on realized capital gains increased the sales of shares enormously. International equity funds stepped in, providing companies with urgently needed liquidity while disentangling the traditional ownership network. Germany Inc is on its last legs.
The good news is that Germany's overblown conglomerates are being scaled down to an efficient size and that the capital market is able to do its job, improving the allocation of resources. The bad news is that financial capital is moving abroad to finance other overblown conglomerates. In net terms, though, there may be more growth worldwide as well as in Germany.
Whatever the case, for many Germans the capitalist allocation processes they are seeing make no sense.
There were times when German capitalism was shown greater respect. In the postwar period, Germany's economic miracle calmed skeptics of capitalism. Starting with extremely low wages and an underdeveloped currency, German workers succeeded in competing against the world. Wages rose rapidly and most Germans experienced growing prosperity. Ludwig Erhard's liberal economic approach worked and the socialist ideas found in the party programs of the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats were forgotten.
During the 1970s, Germans went overboard, confusing capitalism with self-service shops. They began to expand their welfare state, pushing the government's share in GDP from 39 percent to 49 percent and welcoming union-proposed double-digit wage increases. The signs of the fading miracle became visible when Japanese competitors and other Asian Tigers succeeded in wiping out substantial parts of Germany's labor-intensive textile, optical-products and precision-engineering industries. Nevertheless, the public still believed in perpetual growth.
Only after the Iron Curtain's fall and the establishment of market economies in ex-communist countries did the lack of competitiveness of German workers become apparent. The country with the highest labor costs in the world was confronted with low-wage competitors next door. Wage costs in the 10 new EU member countries are still only one-seventh their level in western Germany; wage costs in Rumania and Bulgaria are one-tenth. Chinese wages are even lower, at just 4 percent of the western German average.
German firms reacted by outsourcing the labor-intensive parts of their production chains and curtailing their investment in Germany. The share of net investment in GNP is now the second lowest in all OECD countries. Because investment is so low, net capital exports from Germany are nearly 4 percent of GDP.
Now unemployment is Germany's biggest problem, standing at a postwar record. This alarms the public and incites anger against capitalists who do not reinvest their profits. Muentefering simply caught the popular mood in developing his theory of locust capitalism.
But this useless reaction to the laws of the global market economy hides the fact that Germany's problems are largely a result of an overblown welfare state and extremely aggressive union policies over the last 30 years. Even Marx knew that the iron laws of economics could not be overcome by wishful thinking. Muentefering should have consulted his party's forefather more carefully before opening his mouth.
Hans-Werner Sinn is director of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research in Munich.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS