georgeob1 wrote:
I can't imagine why. Unemployment is down; the economy is growing at an improved pace; Germany is exercising more and more beneficial influence in Europe and other areas. What of the late, unlamented Schroeder government could you wish to restore?
Westphalian Social Democrats may well be unreformable.
Well, most of (nearly all) of those cabinet ressorts which you are pointing at are ... headed by ministers of "my" party, like
- Müntefering, Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Vice-Chancellor,
- Steinmeier, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs,
- Wieczorek-Zeul, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development ,
- Steinbrück, Federal Minister of Finances
... ... ... ...
And that's what I don't like: they are doing the good job, the conservatives harvest the success.
I think Setanta was right about the hams !
re Westphalian ham: there aren't more than a good dozen butcheries which produce 'real' Westphalian ham, but: 80% of the pigs used for Italian Parma ham are breeded in Westphalia. :wink:
georgeob1 wrote:I think Setanta was right about the hams !
Well, I'll discuss that with his Sweetie Pie Girl in three weeks.
Walter Hinteler wrote:georgeob1 wrote:I think Setanta was right about the hams !
Well, I'll discuss that with his Sweetie Pie Girl in three weeks.
Just back from the gym on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. Very refreshed.
Is this your June trip to the USA? Will you get to Washington or San Francisco?
Is it the Social Democrat hams they send off to Parma?
It has begun (slowly) to occur to me that I may have been misreading Setanta's gruff exterior as anger and hostility. If so, I apologize (moderately).
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, most of (nearly all) of those cabinet ressorts which you are pointing at are ... headed by ministers of "my" party, like
- Müntefering, Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, Vice-Chancellor,
- Steinmeier, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs,
- Wieczorek-Zeul, Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development ,
- Steinbrück, Federal Minister of Finances
... ... ... ...
And that's what I don't like: they are doing the good job, the conservatives harvest the success.
Why didn't they do so well when Schroeder was Chancellor?
georgeob1 wrote:
Why didn't they do so well when Schroeder was Chancellor?
Rome wasn't built in a day.
I be.lieve the fact is their policies were different under the previous government. That appears to have made all the difference.
Where will your June travels take you?
a) *no comment*
b) Chicago (31.05 - 04.06); New York (04.06-06.06); Boston (06.06-08.06); New York (08.06.-13.06.)
georgeob1 wrote:I be.lieve the fact is their policies were different under the previous government. That appears to have made all the difference.
I have little up with Schroeder's "Neue Mitte" policies, but fact is unemployment dropped significantly in the first three years he was in power too. So a bit early to say that Merkel is doing better.
georgeob1 wrote:I be.lieve the fact is their policies were different under the previous government. That appears to have made all the difference.
Also, the upturn in economic growth started already in 2004, as the graph below shows - when Schroeder was still in charge.
In that sense, Walter's "Rome wasn't built in a day" appears to be right on track - and your assertion of a sudden seachange somewhat off-target.
That sort of finger-pointing, that playing of the blame game is pretty common in politics, and it can work the same way in either prosperity of recession. Both Ford and Carter inherited the run-away inflation and historically unique rise in interest rates from the Nixon Administration. (Interest rates did not reach an historical high in Nixon's administration, but were already rising at a higher rate than at any time in history. Interest rates reached historical highs in the Ford administration which would have been unique, were it not for the deploring governance of the Treasury in Lincoln's administration. Chase doesn't really deserve to be blamed for that, though, as spending in the war reached $2,000,000 each day by 1862, a financial situation which was such an increase by orders of magnitude over previous U.S. history that neither Chase nor any northern financier knew how to deal with. The eventual solution was to impose an income tax.)
Ford took a beating for a financial situation he did not create, and for which he did not have sufficient time in office to rectify. Carter took the blame in 1980 both for a situation in Iran which he did not create, and for failing to have solved the economic problems to the satisfaction of the voters. However, Carter did appoint Paul Volcker to the Fed in 1979, and Volcker was getting a handle on the situation. Therefore, when Reagan took office, he was able to benefit, in terms of political capital, from the effectiveness of Volcker's policies at the Fed. Volcker's tight money policy to combat inflation, combined with targeting the accumulation of capital to move it back into circulation, to combat inflation and double-digit interest rates, was effective enough that when Reagan contemplated replacing him, his advisors panicked, and begged him to leave Volcker in place.
Both Ford and Carter got the blame for an economic situation they did not create (and which it is uncertain Nixon could have "fixed," given that this occurred at the end of the only war which the United States was seen as losing [which seriously eroded international confidence in the dollar] and at a time when new credit instruments and new investment plans were being created in international investment and money markets). Reagan benefited from the policies of a Fed Chairman he did not appoint, and whose policies ran contrary to the shallow and ill-considered economic policies which Reagan had touted when running for office in 1980. Much of the smaller but crucial detail of his 1980 economic plan (which Pappy Bush justifiably described as Voo-doo economics) was quietly dropped, and by 1984, with Volcker's policies paying off, Reagan reaped the benefit of the improving economy. In particular, Volcker's successful effort to break lose conservatively invested capital, and banked capital (also known as money stock, or monetary aggregate) lead to the "go-go" stock market of the 1980s which rose to historical new highs, never imagined by the members holding seats on the New York Stock Exchange.
Similarly, although confidence in the business community in Clinton's proposed tight Federal spending policies certainly helped him into office in 1988 (with Pappy Bush being seen as ineffective and out of touch economically), the greatest factor in the prosperity of the 1990s was the dramatic growth of the tech sector, something for which Clinton could not realistically claim any credit. He got the credit for a healthy economy, nonetheless. Conversely, he also suffered in public opinion from the effects of the bursting of the tech bubble, something else for which he was not responsible.
It is almost axiomatic in politics that a new leader will either suffer from the on-going effects of his or her predecessor's mistakes, or be able to reap the benefits of the long-term effects of sound policies implemented by his or her predecessor.
I agree with that.
One could add that Clinton supporters who brag about the budget surplus of the Clinton years are also taking credit for things they didn't do. The surplus was the combined result of cyclical economic forces that started long before the Clinton presidency, and, in part a result of gridlock in a divided government (Republican Congress and Democrat President) which limited the ability of either party to screw things up.
georgeob1 wrote:The surplus was the combined result of cyclical economic forces that started long before the Clinton presidency, and, in part a result of gridlock in a divided government (Republican Congress and Democrat President) which limited the ability of either party to screw things up.
I'll agree with that (with several reservations) and point out that the last six years demonstrate that if either party gets the upper hand in the Congress, they'll spend as though there were no tomorrow. It is worth noting, though, that Clinton did have two years before the Republicans took control of the House.
So Sarkozy became the French president yesterday.
Today's Guardian's leader sums it up nicely, I think:
Quote:French government
A broad church
Leader
Monday May 21, 2007
The Guardian
If getting elected president was a coup, Nicolas Sarkozy produced an even bigger surprise when nominating his first government. Everyone thought the president was going to appoint his friends. What he did was to bag four Socialists, a centrist and two loyalists of the former president Jacques Chirac. Seven of the 15 ministers are women. Only two of the lineup have been to France's political finishing school, the École Nationale d'Administration - another plus after an election in which elitism was an issue. But the real catch, for the man who had courted the extreme right during his campaign, was Bernard Kouchner, the co-founder of Médecins sans Frontières, one of the most popular politicians in France and now its foreign minister.
Not only had Mr Kouchner campaigned and voted for Ségolène Royal in both rounds of the presidential elections. He had accused his current boss of being the Silvio Berlusconi of France. Mr Kouchner is an active interventionist. It was he who first developed the theory of humanitarian intervention to justify international action against dictators who flout human rights. On Iraq he says today that he was "neither for the war, nor for Saddam Hussein", although he is remembered at the time for speaking out against the official French position, which opposed the invasion. An avowed Atlanticist, he said he regretted the fact that the French became "America-phobic". Thus far, Mr Kouchner and Mr Sarkozy are at one. Turkey is a more interesting issue, as the new foreign minister is in favour of the "secular Islamic country" joining the European Union while his president is unambiguously against.
But for the moment none of this matters. Asked why he had joined the enemy camp, Mr Kouchner said he still remained true to his social-democratic beliefs. But the people had cast their vote, that was behind them, and what was important now was to advance the interests of French diplomacy, which were "neither right nor left". This is manna from heaven for the new president. Because in truth, politics are not behind the government of Mr Sarkozy, but in front of it. There is barely a month to go before the parliamentary elections, and what Mr Sarkozy has produced is a formidable election-winning machine. If his two chief opponents in the presidential elections, Ms Royal and François Bayrou, lectured the nation about the need to change the terms of the political debate and create an open, inclusive government where ideas and talent mattered more than ideology, Mr Sarkozy has seized the initiative by putting their words into action. With a lineup like that, who can accuse him of not being open? Furthermore, 11 of the 20 members of the new government will be standing for election in the two rounds of the parliamentary election on June 10 and 17. Not content to be chosen by his president, the centre-right prime minister, François Fillon, wants to stand in his old constituency (it is only the third time in the Fifth Republic that a serving prime minister has done this). So does another surprise appointment, Alain Juppé, a Chirac loyalist who has enjoyed a remarkable political comeback after being convicted of corruption only three years ago. Mr Juppé is a Gaullist kingmaker who at one point in his career put all his efforts into crushing the chances of Mr Sarkozy gaining the leadership of the party. Mr Juppé becomes the environment minister.
The cabinet lineup received a boost in two opinion polls yesterday, one of which put the approval rating as high as 65%. Mr Sarkozy's party is on course to not only retain its 350 seats in the assembly but improve on that. The Socialists could capture at most 200 seats (Ms Royal has decided not to stand) and the centrist Democratic Movement of Mr Bayrou could have a dire time of it. If this comes to pass, Mr Sarkozy will have gained a clean sweep in this year's elections. No need to compromise with cohabitation. The president will have got the mandate he needs to govern.
A remarkable turn of events. Sarkozy has already changed the political game in France. By these actions he has probably preempted the potential of the left and the emerging Bayrou 'centrist' movements from using the forthcoming parliamentary elections as a means of thwarting his initiatives or diluting his political power.
So far probably very good for France.
Well, he's not for nothing compared with Napoléon.
A typical left-handed compliment. Sour grapes, Walter.
With time you will learn to appreciate him as much as Angela.
georgeob1 wrote:With time you will learn to appreciate him as much as Angela.
As much as you appreciate GW?
