Observations about the Commonalities between China and Germany — from The Globalist’s editor, Stephan Richter — and My Statement about Why We Should Pay Attention

05 September 2012

The lackadaisical brainlessness that characterizes American economic and energy policies contrasts unfavorably with the proactive directions that China and Germany both implement

From Stephan Richter (writing about the developing friendly relationship between China and Germany):

What unites the Chinese and the Germans is also far more than potential solidarity between two major countries that are criticized (unfairly) for pursuing mercantilist trade policies.

Both countries know that they have their problems and drawbacks — as virtually all nations do. But they also know that, rather than letting problems fester, they are consistently working on remedying them, whether by strengthening domestic demand or letting the renminbi appreciate.

And they know that playing unilateral blame games, as is frequently the case in the United States, is often just a highly transparent effort to deflect attention from one's homegrown problems.

Beyond their common belief that we are living in a world where all are sinners and all need to strive for self-improvement, the Chinese and Germans share:

a strong belief in the need for fiscal consolidation,

a desire to achieve balanced growth in socioeconomic terms,

strong doubts about the primacy of the financial economy, and

a shared reliance on the manufacturing sector as a vital tool for economic growth.

[T]he fact that the German economy has delivered engineering excellence for a century and a half resonates strongly with the band of engineers — not lawyers — that makes up the Chinese leadership. They see that as worth striving for.

That Mrs. Merkel trained as a scientist only adds further to the (mutual) respect. So does the fact that she — along with many of her country's leading manufacturers — is focused on being on the cutting edge of green growth.

China's interest is further tickled by the fact that Germany — having badly failed in that endeavor before — carries no big stick and rather seeks to convince more by the power of its example and performance than by grandiloquent speeches or the military.

There is a lot to notice in Richter’s observations — and “so what” is the wrong answer

First message, American “exceptionalism” is fading.

The longer we keep jingo-patriotically, parrot-perching ourselves atop that towering pile of now rotting past accomplishments — the more likely it is that ordinary Americans are going to keep swirling around the economic toilet bowl.

Other nations are starting to lead races that we have not been forward-looking enough to get into.

One can certainly argue with the scope of Mr. Richter’s generalizations. But the preponderance of evidence indicates that China and Germany are more proactively future-oriented than the United States. The question is why, and Richter's essay gives at least a partial answer.

Note

I’ve been wryly amused in recent months at the number of pompous pundit essays that point to the inevitable obstacles and probable failures that China and Germany are facing.

(As if the United States weren’t already waist-deep in a pool of suck.)

This “they’re gonna trip” attitude seems to me like hoping that a steeplechase (track) runner, who is already a lap ahead, is going to fall head-first at the water jump. That may happen, but his fall is unlikely to regain the lap that Sour Grapes Guy is trailing.

Most of the time, it’s best to recognize that we are being out-paced and think of way to stay in contact. After all, we might be the one taking a tumble at the water jump, the next time around.

A critical assumption — multinational plutocrats and corporations are not “us”

What follows is predicated on the understanding that what is good for American society, as a whole, is different than the conditions and policies that currently benefit the plutocrats who seem to own the country.

The first thing to notice about Mr. Richter’s essay is that China and Germany both recognize that socioeconomic inequalities matter. The United States’ burgeoning inequality indicates that we do not.

Hence, my insistence that we Americans wake up. Continuing to buy the rah rah rhetoric that marks American politics keeps ordinary Americans anchored in a loser’s position.

Consider the individual points that Mr. Richter made — and think about how United States policy compares in each category

I picked Stephan Richter’s essay because it mirrors the argument that I have been making on this website for more than two years. If what we are doing is not working to our benefit, then we better do something else.

Mr. Richter highlighted the shared Chinese-German emphasis on thinking and acting:

fix festering problems

self-improve

reduce debt

balance growth across socioeconomic classes

avoid becoming a predominantly financial economy

manufacture

Now, contrast the American performance in these same categories:

we are so divisively mired in childish shouting that serious problems fester for decades

we are so “exceptional” that we do not need to self-improve

we are buried in debt, due to a penchant for ignoring economic reality

we actively do the opposite of balancing economic rewards across classes

our predominantly financial economy profits speculators and con-men, who produce nothing of useful substance

our manufacturing sector withers away, as a result of the magical belief that “the market will fix this”

The Chinese and German emphasis on thinking and doing is partially reflected in the professional orientations of those who lead

On the Chinese side, Richter points to engineers in leadership.

On the German, to more than a century of consistent engineering excellence and to the fact that Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, is a scientist.

Note

Chancellor Merkel trained as a physical chemist, noticeably not a profession for even smart dummies.

In contrast, President Obama (with BA in Political Science and a law degree) — certainly no dullard himself — talks a good political line, but he probably does not intuit much about the fundamentals of science and engineering.

Note

Given the President’s alleged propensity for visibly out-doing other people, he could probably come up with a purely artificial competition in which he would win game points against chemists like Prime Minister Merkel — but still miss the bigger engineering and science picture that she probably intuitively sees.

I have seen nothing in President Obama’s professional performance that gives me the impression that he thinks proactively, realistically and systemically in anything that pertains to the national interest.

The other political corner is not better. Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney (with a BA in English and an MBA) made his money by legally looting money from corporations and workers that actually built or sold things.

And his vice presidential nominee sidekick, Paul Ryan (with a degree in Economics and Political Science), gained famed by repeatedly lying about budget numbers, as well as his marathon time.

Here, we won’t discuss Congress, arguably among the planet’s most useless and obstructive institutions. We could fill that body with certified dunderheads, and no one would notice a difference in institutional performance.

The point is that engineers and scientists are accustomed to thinking in realistic terms

Engineers, especially, are oriented toward getting concrete things done within a timeline.

The contrast between an engineer’s Reality-bound, “produce or die” world and a (non-engineer) politician’s magical thinking is striking.

Among China, Germany, and the United States, guess who is coping with the Future’s demands with arguably more insight and probable wisdom.

The moral? — When we’re beginning to cough up other people’s dust, it’s time to analyze what they are doing that we might emulate, counter, or improve upon

Americans’ customary political response here will be that “we” have nothing to learn from “socialist” Europe and authoritarian China.

Which, of course, tends to prove my observation about Reality-deniers and a loser’s mentality.

Note

The overwhelming majority of Americans could not accurately define socialism, capitalism, fascism, communism, or mixed economy — even with guns dimpling our heads.

For most of us, these are rhetorical buzz words. In political use, they provoke primal emotional responses that encourage us farther down the path of witless reactivity.

Stephan Richter’s essay is worth reading and thinking about.

PeteFree.com

Observations about the Commonalities between China and Germany — from The Globalist’s editor, Stephan Richter — and My Statement about Why We Should Pay Attention