No Comment — August 24, 2010, 5:02 pm

Our Century: A Dialogue with Helmut Schmidt and Fritz Stern (III)

With the kind permission of C.H. Beck Verlag, former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and Columbia University historian Fritz Stern, we present here the third in a series of excerpts from the bestselling book Unser Jahrhundert – Ein Gespräch, in an original English translation.

cover_schmidt

iii. parties, fiscal and democratic accountability

stern: The question is how long the population in a democratic system will play along [with policies of fiscal irresponsibility]. It’s not a question of the individual member of parliament who drops out at some point. I understood you from the start to mean that “dropping out” amounts to a rejection of society, of the entire system.

schmidt: That’s not what I meant. I mean specifically the situation in which a parliamentary deputy defies party discipline, declines to vote as his leadership asks, and perhaps even leaves his party. One of the great weaknesses and dangers of democracy is that a party that wants to govern has to sell itself to the people, even with respect to fiscal policy –

stern: Especially with respect to fiscal policy. The opposition of many Americans to taxation is enormous; they hardly seem to recognize the extent to which they rely on state services, even in their day-to-day life.

schmidt: Politicians attach themselves to all sorts of rescue maneuvers, whether Opel or Quelle or Abwrackprämie, in the expectation that this will win them some votes. The bill is delivered later. What helps politicians at present is the circumstance that in concept all major states are reacting to the crisis in the same manner, whether they are democracies or authoritarian states like Russia or communist states like China. If all of these governments had not announced an economic rescue program of legendary measure (and thereby assumed an enormous state debt), then today we would be faced with five million unemployed in Germany, five million unemployed in France and fifty million unemployed in China. All states of the world did the same, namely that implemented enormous economic rescue plans and pressed their central banks to assist by making the necessary money available. All did the same. And that is in my view very fortunate, because from 1929 to 1932 almost every state behaved differently, and in each case falsely.

stern: Exactly! Then there was an enormous economic illiteracy. Most believed that they had the right measure to cure a depression, namely deflation, spending less money. The thought that one should spend more money to help the economy lift itself out, to suppress unemployment, occurred to very few. But – and this would be my question to you – at some point the deficit spending has to come to an end. Indeed, the Germans have just put a limit on deficits in the Grundgesetz.

schmidt: You shouldn’t take that too seriously. There has never been a state that operated without deficits. I exclude the oil exporting countries, the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. That doesn’t mean that the state can’t run up debts as it likes. Every excessive indebtedness of a state – it must be serviced on one hand, and at some point extinguished on the other – leads to an accumulation of cash that expands the purchasing power, particularly when the central bank plays along, which they presently do. The final effect of excessive indebtedness is an inflationary movement of prices. That is unavoidable. That occurred in both world wars, in all affected states, and it will follow just as certainly following the current crisis, after it has been surmounted – the question is only when that will be. The consequence is an inflationary development. That is not to be avoided.

stern: The development in America was somewhat different. Government debt rose horribly in the eight years under George W. Bush –

schmidt: That began with Reagan. In that connection, one has to express respect for the eight years of Clinton, he brought the American budget back into order.

stern: That’s just what I wanted to say: George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget from Clinton, and he left behind a massive deficit. And then his boasts to be a conservative!

schmidt: The decisive weakness of the American state, which was first apparent during the Reagan era, is the balance of trade deficit. As long as the state’s debts are with its own citizens, that’s its own thing; but when the American State has $2 trillion in debt to the Chinese and $1 trillion to the Japanese, and another $1 trillion to the French, Germans, Swiss, Russians and the OPEC countries, then serious problems arise.

stern: Debt inside one’s own family, if I can call it that, is a burden for future generations. However, if one runs up enormous debts with outsiders, then one is subject to their extortion. For a great power like America that is –

schmidt: More theoretical than practical at present.

stern: At present.

schmidt: Yes, for instance the Chinese, with $2 trillion in their currency reserves at present, are hardly about to sell them to someone else to come up with cash payable in Euros or Yen.

stern: As long as the return is correct and as long as the investment is relatively secure, the Chinese are not likely thinking of a sale. And the return is still higher in America than in the rest of the world. But if interest rates climb, that would quickly become a burden for the Americans.

schmidt: Yes, indeed.

stern: An important predicate for restoring order would be that America restores a better balance between imports and exports. At present American consumers purchase every imaginable product from abroad without being in the position of selling their own goods abroad. But up to this point Americans have had little need to produce goods for export because of their enormous domestic market.

schmidt: In any event they didn’t feel they were under any special pressure to do so. There are two exceptions: the American armaments industry and the American aviation industry.

stern: But the problem in America isn’t just the foreign indebtedness. One shouldn’t forget–and it will certainly extend the financial crisis–that Americans also have enormous private debt–that they live off their debt. It’s hardly coincidental that the global financial crisis began with the American real estate market. And we’re far from the end of this crisis. I think and hope that Obama is on the right path. In any event he had the courage to tell the American people about the seriousness of the situation during the election campaign. Very few politicians are willing to take such a risk because they know that generally this is not the way one wins the next election.

schmidt: You’re right–a responsible politician can only proceed to tell the people how serious the situation is with the most careful contemplation, whether in Germany or in America. But that is not only related to the election campaign. Put yourself in the position of a doctor, and you have before yourself a patient, about whom you know that he has cancer, prostate cancer. The spread of the cancer to the rest of the body can take a very long time. You must tell him: You have cancer. But do you want to tell him: In your case, I reckon that you have two more years. As a doctor, you wouldn’t do that. The politician’s situation is similar. To tell the patient how serious his situation is without being able to change the situation would be only to reduce the patient’s confidence.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Minimum number of shooting incidents in the United States in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:

2

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today