In 1945 Germany was in ruins. Hitler's 1,000 year Reich had brought the country into an aggressive war and the massive defeat that followed, and, unlike in 1918, much by way of industrial, commercial and residential property had been destroyed.
By 1965 it was an industrial powerhouse, economically dynamic, prosperous, successful and a model democracy (at least in what was now "West Germany").
20 years. What happened?
In many ways it was fortunate in its friends. The allies could easily have applied another Treaty of Versailles in 1946, and washed their hands of the country when it couldn't pay. In many respects there were more reasons to expect Germany to pay for the war damages after the Second World War than after the First.
There was though the ogre of Communism in the East. The whole of Germany might have followed the Eastern part of country into the Soviet bloc, and then ....
So along came the Marshall Plan (not just in Germany, but strategically important nonetheless in German reconstruction).
Then came democracy, the CDU, Adenauer and Erhard, the economic miracle, and the rest is the proverbial history.
The CDU was a new Conservative party. Its principles were traditional conservative. Its economic thinking founded in traditional conservatism (even if Erhard, with his brilliant mind, gave it some new directions). It was not a government based on neo-conservative principles adopting neo-liberal economics. That point needs clearly stating and the difference clearly emphasising!
The manufacture of quality goods and their circulation, the involvement of all company personnel in their production and circulation, involving the workforce in discussions on adequate compensation and ensuring that they were adequately rewarded. The workforce taking their wages to buy goods produced by other companies which again allowed those companies to produce more and become profitable so there were more profits to share and the cycle could ever increase ..... usw.
Not that there wasn't international trade. The port of Hamburg would not have become prosperous without it. Raw materials had to be imported, and paid for by the export of finished goods. Agricultural products that could not be produced sufficiently at home had to be purchased. Which is really how the Common Market got started (successfully!).
Society was inclusive, people worked hard (work ethic was an important part of the culture), debts were paid off and not accumulated, savings culture was encouraged. Of course some people were better off than others, of course there were some social issues - it was not perfect. But it was mainly successful.
And there was also no regional emphasis placing one part of the country ahead of any other, so that the financial centre round Frankfurt (which also had the burgeoning international airport) was not seen as more important than the manufacturing areas of the Ruhr, or the car plants in Bavaria and Niedersachsen (the UK, in particular, and France to a point, could do to take very clear notice of that!).
What was not around during that era of reconstruction and success?
Trickle-down economics!
Everyone had a part to play, many, if not all benefited. Including the conservative (but not neo-conservative!) government, which was re-elected in several consecutive elections. Why should working people vote against a government that was improving their lifestyle and their standard of living?
That Adenauer and Erhard are still regarded as almost iconic figures in Germany by my contemporaries here is really not surprising. And the fact that that is no longer current Germany also leads to more than a touch of nostalgia.
But the model is worth revisiting. THE POST-1980 MODEL of speculating on debt, removing the means of production from the local environment, emphasising cheap as against quality, idolising currency speculators, and thinking that what happens on international stock markets is more important than the quality and manufacture of goods, HAS FAILED!
It has produced mass unemployment, huge degrees of insecurity, increasing poverty in the developed world without alleviating it elsewhere, a generally declining standard of living of working people, the erosion of work-ethic, and ludicrously high amounts of unsustainable debt!
Failure is failure by any definition. Trickle-down economics is a total failure, and needs replacing with a solution that benefits all - and not just the rich and powerful!
No comments:
Post a Comment