EU power shifts from Brussels to Berlin

EU Observer ^ | 06.01.14 @ 09:34 (Jan. 6) | Valentina Pop

[Olog-hai]

While the eurozone crisis in 2013 lingered in most countries, Germany seemed to be doing better than ever. It had low unemployment, high productivity and exports so strong that the European Commission asked it to do more to help ailing periphery countries in the single currency bloc.

Chancellor Angela Merkel—the most powerful leader in Europe—was elected once again and took up a third mandate in a coalition government with the Social Democrats. […]

The famous question—“Who do I call when I want to talk Europe?”—has no answer. The EU is too complicated. But 2013 showed that calling Berlin (or bugging its calls) is a good place to start. …

[x]

The major event shifting things in Germany’s favor was the creation of the euro.

Maybe. But Germany wasn't in such great shape under Schröder even with the Euro.

That currency, even born as a fiat currency, was designed with the German bloc in mind, and was detrimental to Club Med and the British sphere.

If somebody has to be the sick man, then sure, somebody else became the sick man.

But Germany's always had a strong manufacturing sector, and that counts for a lot.

They kept making things and improved their productivity, when other countries were pursuing financial illusions and building fanciful sand castles or houses of cards.

They deserve some credit for that.

[Olog-hai]

That sounds more like a comparison between Germany and the USA. So many people over here forgot the principles in Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures; a domestic manufacturing base is really vital to national security.

Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. …

Notwithstanding, even with a robust manufacturing sector, Germany’s recovery was a bit too rapid; not even the USA, when manufacturing was over 50 percent of the total economy, could do that.

[BfloGuy]

Because of all the costs of reunification.

OK. That had crossed my mind, but I think to call it the "sick man of Europe" was inaccurate. The reasons for Germany's fiscal problems at the time were clear to see. Its economic output, however, remained strong and growing.

When the UK was termed "the sick man of Europe" in the early seventies, it was quite accurate. The country was stagnating under its socialist welfare structure.