« | Home | »

Germany’s Bad Conscience

Tags: |

Germany, it seems, has neither the will to fix the euro nor the courage to pull the plug on it. Angela Merkel opposes the kind of real reform that might end the crisis for good, but when faced with a choice between the possible break-up of the eurozone and yet another bailout, she has (so far) proved willing to make concessions. The pattern looks set to be repeated with Spain over the weekend.
Most economists agree that Germany has done well out of the euro, its strong economic performance over the last decade owing a lot to artificially low production costs at home and artificially high demand on the eurozone’s periphery. But in his new book, Germany Doesn’t Need the Euro, Thilo Sarrazin, a former member of the executive board of the Bundesbank, dismisses this argument out of hand, claiming instead that Germany has gained nothing from the euro because it hasn’t been growing any faster than northern European countries that stayed out of the single currency.

Sarrazin, a lifelong bureaucrat, shot to fame two years ago with Germany Abolishes Itself, in which he ‘argued’ that Muslim immigrants are putting Germany’s cultural and economic survival at risk. The book has sold close to two million copies. When critics accused Sarrazin of racism, he positioned himself as a victim of political correctness, saying that Germany’s establishment doesn’t dare criticise immigrants because it is so ashamed of the country’s past. As a rationalist who prefers just to look at the facts, he alone is brave enough to speak the truth.

In a similar vein, Sarrazin maintains in his new book that Germany adopted the euro because politicians like Helmut Kohl wanted to ‘alleviate their bad conscience’. Even now, Germans who favour the introduction of eurobonds ‘are propelled by that very German reflex according to which we will only have done penance for the Holocaust and the World War once we have placed all of our own matters, even our money, into European hands’.

As for the danger facing Germany if the euro disintegrates, Sarrazin never even discusses it. He acknowledges that fear of contagion from a Greek default ‘seems to influence what all relevant actors do’, but chooses to ‘leave unanswered the question of whether this fear is well-founded’. If Sarrazin were really the clear-eyed rationalist looking out for Germany’s self-interest that he claims to be, he would consider the possible consequences of the looming demise of the euro. Instead, he spends his time on useless hypotheticals, imagining how much better things would be if Germany had never given up the deutschmark.
Sarrazin’s arguments are far from convincing. But he has, once again, struck a nerve. Many Germans agree that the euro’s introduction was a misguided form of penance for the past. German newspapers rarely discuss the euro’s contribution to German growth, or the effects that a chaotic breakdown of the single currency might have for Germany. There is surprisingly little discussion of how the country’s self-interest might, in the long run, be served. Cheered on by Sarrazin, people instead ask themselves whether, 67 years after the end of the Third Reich, Germany still has a moral obligation to pay for Greece’s profligacy. Once the question is put in those terms, it’s hardly surprising that, according to a recent poll, 60 per cent of Germans want to see Greece leave the eurozone and 79 per cent oppose the introduction of eurobonds.
And yet a paradox remains. Germans are increasingly turning against the compromises that have kept the euro afloat. But, for all that, they don’t want to leave the single currency. Even Sarrazin admits that ‘one neither can nor should simply leave the euro.’ Like most of his countrymen, he is at a loss as to what Germany should do.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement