Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joeninety
Why not just simplify it German style rather than going into some long winded factualness that ultimately leads to nowhere.
Germans are ruthlessly efficient, they have a very strong work ethos ingrained into their society, they are well educated, take pride in what they do, they do not suffer fools gladly, and when they work their is no I in team, they are a well oiled united machine each member of that society does its role well (on the whole) for the greater good of the society.
Add to the list that they think things through a lot more than your average European (as in they're are not impulsive) and by virtue are quite logical and methodical in their thinking and approach to life, plus their is a decent level of trust in their society and generally the members believe and trust the system, partly due to the system methodology evidently working well, which is probably partly down to lack of corruption against members within the society and as all productive members (not just high society members) are valued and rewarded it is clear why they will outlast us.
Put all of the above together and ingrain it into every member of German society then it becomes obvious why German society is thriving, they have taken the best bits of Capitalism, Communism and Socialism and efficiently & effectively turned it into their very own brand of Germanism.
This sounds almost like an ethnic analysis of the German character. Don't get me wrong. I think it's nothing but a compliment to say that a nation of people is "logical...methodical....ruthlessly efficient.....has a strong work ethic....lacks corruption...". It also seems like a compliment, though a bizarre one, to call their economic success "Germanism".
I just think that economic miracles do not have as much to do with the national or ethnic character of a people as with sound policies, good decision-making, and good circumstances. When other nations of people are successful I frequently see them demonized for their success. For instance, China is portrayed in the United States as intellectual property thieves and Japan for a while was portrayed in the 1980's as voyeuristic and using all sorts of subversive tactics to strengthen their economy at the expense of America. Yet both the Chinese and the Japanese are superbly well-educated.
I think a lot of the focus on Germany's success and the relative poverty of other parts of Europe is often misplaced. I am sure that something can be learned from Germany's economic success and it may relate to education or certain national policies, but I doubt it is that the Teutons have the capacity to think things through more than others.
Where was Germanism in the 1920's when Germans were going to the supermarket with wheelbarrels full of money?
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
That tends to be how lending takes place. The lender makes money and the person accepting the loans borrows because they need the money and are willing to repay the interest. While someone on a revolving short-term loan may claim usury and have a legitimate case, sovereign debt tends to be very different as you have sophisticated borrowers. If Britain borrowed and the terms weren't very attractive it must have been because they could not get better terms elsewhere???
Totally agree but at the time British politicians expected that in view of the United Kingdom's contribution to the war, especially in light of the lives lost before the United States entered the fight, they wrongly assumed America would offer favorable terms.
Its one thing to loan Joe blogs in the street at whatever rate, but to a country that is meant to be your ally and has made a major sacrafice of sorts and is now desperately in need, it is unethical and morally incorrect to then try and exploit that need in such a ruthless manner the way America did, that is why America is wrong on so many levels as it lacks the qualities of upstanding morals, sound ethical practices, and compassion
I mean if your friend asked you for a loan and you knew he was desperate would you exploit that fact in such a vicious manner???
I will reply to your other post later on
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joeninety
America loves to enslave countries through debt so yes on paper US firms may own low percentage stakes in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries but they are very clever about who really owns that oil, take Iraq for instance as soon as that war ensued what was the first thing they did, that's right they secured the oil refineries and pipelines, next when Saddam was ousted they said they had to take control of the production and sale of the oil but that all the proceeds would go back to Iraq, ok you may think fair enough until you realise that America was solely in charge of who that oil was sold to and how much it sold the oil for, meaning America sold oil to America at a knock down price and elitists profited massively.
Another example of who really owns anything is look at the current situation with Iran now I think they are the 9th largest supplier of oil yet America has managed to put sanctions on that country and stop a lot of its supplies being sold. Luckily for Iran China and India are happy to be their new big customers so how much of an effect that tactic will have is negligible but if Iran hadn't been in the shadow of the ascending dragon then things would have been very different and they would of ended up being another Iraq.
There are countless other examples of American indirectly owning oil but it is a long winded story, so guess what I am saying is America may not own the majority shares on paper in these oil companies, but in reality they do own a lot of this oil as they control the sales or not of it.
On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.
My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil.
Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???
If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.
I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.
If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
This sounds almost like an ethnic analysis of the German character. Don't get me wrong. I think it's nothing but a compliment to say that a nation of people is "logical...methodical....ruthlessly efficient.....has a strong work ethic....lacks corruption...". It also seems like a compliment, though a bizarre one, to call their economic success "Germanism".
I just think that economic miracles do not have as much to do with the national or ethnic character of a people as with sound policies, good decision-making, and good circumstances. When other nations of people are successful I frequently see them demonized for their success. For instance, China is portrayed in the United States as intellectual property thieves and Japan for a while was portrayed in the 1980's as voyeuristic and using all sorts of subversive tactics to strengthen their economy at the expense of America. Yet both the Chinese and the Japanese are superbly well-educated.
I think a lot of the focus on Germany's success and the relative poverty of other parts of Europe is often misplaced. I am sure that something can be learned from Germany's economic success and it may relate to education or certain national policies, but I doubt it is that the Teutons have the capacity to think things through more than others.
Where was Germanism in the 1920's when Germans were going to the supermarket with wheelbarrels full of money?
Sometimes somethings are in a nations blood literally the Germans were seen as Barbarians by the once almighty Romans yet the might of Rome fell partly by its own hand but partly by the Barbarians hand when the last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic (barbarian) chieftain.
These weren't really the unthinking savages that the Romans presumed then to be, they were smart and tactical and able to beat the larger better equipped army and guess what one day it took two wars and the might of the rest of the world to beat the Barbarian descendants, then America was straight in their pocketing all of their scientists and thinkers, then through all that adversity and the splitting up of its country its managed to put itself back together and become a powerhouse once again now is that all coincidence or are their certain traits in that societies gene pool that allow its Alphas and compliant Betas to think and follow their way out of adversity????
I do not think that surmising certain advantageous character traits can be bred into societies is far fetched when you consider that is exactly what goes on in selective animal breeding programmes be it dogs or sheep.
Education plays a big part in things but so can an innate ability.
And yes on all counts I was complimenting the modern day German.
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil yes it might not be "state" owned but you can bet your bottom dollar that American fingers are in those pies.
Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???
If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.
I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.
If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
On the oil, I don't see the point you are making. There are no state-owned oil companies in the US, the largest companies, Exxon, Chevron and Conoco-Phillips are privately owned; BP is now basically an Anglo-American company, just as Royal Dutch Shell is Anglo-Dutch but all these companies have assets across the world in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the North Sea, and so on. The US led the coalition that overthrew the regime in Iraq, it made sense at the time to take control of the refining and producing outlets, if only to stop theft and sabotage, but the US now has no control over the industry. Exxon has been awarded contracts in the north of Iraq by the Kurds but the government in Baghdad is opposed to it -autonomy for the Kurds may not go as far as oil contracts but it remains to be seen how this plays out. Iran has the third largest gas resources in the world and has been a key supplier to Japan since the days of the Shah who negotiated a deal whereby Iranians had preferential treatment as immigrants in Japan; the sanctions being imposed are a re-run of the sanction imposed on Iran in 1951 when the oil industry was nationalised. At that time oil was their only major earner and the country was brought to its knees by the time of the coup in 1953, but I doubt that the sanctions will be as effective as they were in the 1950s. Finally, the US has been reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern oil which is somewhere around 25-30% of its imports, if that, as I haven't checked the latest figures. It may even be less than 20%.
Yes, but why let facts get in the way of ideology?!
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Something in the blood - now that is a bizarre notion - unless its a metaphor?
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
Something in the blood - now that is a bizarre notion - unless its a metaphor?
In the blood statement was being metaphoric for in the genetics, as a nation they seem to have some great thinkers and leaders, also generally the majority of the population seem to have no problem in following the hierarchical command structure the two work in unison, all of these would be deemed necessary survival factors in what makes a successful pack of say wolfs or lions, behaviour in animals can be influenced by genetic predisposition, docile behaviour for instance in our domesticated animals has been bred into them.
So what I am saying is generally hierarchical structures stay in tact and form the foundations of a lot of societies E.g rich tend men (generally a class of good thinkers) marry/partner in general either pretty women, equally smart women or women from established stock, whereas at the bottom end of society working class people generally tend to marry/partner other working class people.
So by doing this and being given certain education opportunities in accordance to your class then certain types of people are going to come about, but there are always exceptions to the rules.
Re: What makes the Germans so successful?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joeninety
My point about who owns the oil is that you said American-American companies own around 5%, my point is America is always invading other countries of interest for its own gains and usually ends up installing or backing corrupt puppets that will do its bidding and by proxy they then get indirect split ownership of the oil yes it might not be "state" owned but you can bet your bottom dollar that American fingers are in those pies.
Can you not see the dots, preceding the Shah was Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq then come the sanctions, then guess what he is overthrown in an American coup, then is the extensive backing of the pro American Shah, note where America goes to liberate those from supposed tyranny and note where the other tyrants are and where it does not bother to go and spread its supposed democracy, what are the common factors???
If you do the maths and look at the history you get the real picture of what goes on.
I wouldn't rely heavily these import statistics as who really compiles them??? But what I will say is that America has been busy fracking the fuck out of its country, their is the Bush Saudi connect (very in depth but where did senior get the money to start his oil aspirations?) which is kind of funny considering the massive conflict of interest that produced during gulf war1 when Saddam wanted his kuwait Oil fields.
If you are still not getting the picture of who owns most of the oil in reality then I will find you links instead as it is a very long winded story.
I think you are so concerned to see the pale hand of the US intervening at will to get a slice of the action that you have missed some more important facts.
1) The first is that it was the British who lost the most in 1951, Anglo-Iranian as it was then (subsequently BP) relied on Iran for 75% of its product (crude oil, natural gas, refined products), and also lost control of the world's largest refinery at Abadan (which was kept in perfect working order throughout its three years of idleness). The firm was also a key supplier to the British armed forces on land, sea and in the air.
2) The British government lost the key source of its foreign exchange and it was they (Attlee was Prime Minister at the time) and the company who organised the global boycott that meant the new National Iranian Oil Company had no customers (these days sanctions are a gift for busters who make millions, inside and outside the sanctioned country). The British view was that the nationalisation was a threat to the integrity of the British Empire.
3) the Americans were obsessed with Communism and believed the Iranian political party the Tudeh [communist-equivalent] was behind the anti-British unrest, only partly true. They feared a revival of Soviet/Russian interference in Iran which stretched back through the Soviet occupation of the provinces of Azerbaijan in the Second World War, the short-lived Soviet Republic of Gilan (a small province on the Caspian Sea in northern Iran) in 1920-21 to Russian Imperial game-playing with the British in the 19th century.
4) the decision to fund an overthrow of the Musadeq government was taken by Churchill and Eisenhower (Operation Ajax), selecting General Zahedi as the man around whom the operations would take place. Kermit Roosevelt was the CIA's organiser in Iran (helped by Norman Schwarzkopf, father of Stormin' Norman). They passed millions of $$ to agents provocateurs -many of them ex-cons, fascists, or wrestlers- to break up Nationalist demonstrators, sabotage shops and businesses friendly to Musadeq and his supporters, and contrived to create the sense of chaos against which Zahedi moved -failing on the first attempt (prompting the Shah to rush off in a plane to Switzerland fearing the worst)- before succeeding at a second attempt (prompting the Shah -who had to be pressured by Zahedi to become figurehead of the new government to fly back).
5) Yes it is true that the new agreement in 1954 allowed Anglo-Iranian back in, but with a smaller percentage of the oil with American firms part of the new Iranian Oil Participants consortium -but there had already been criticism of Anglo-Iranian's handling of the Iranians given that Standard and the Saudis had negotiated a 50-50 split on the oil revenues which Anglo-Iranian had refused to contemplate.
So you could say that the consequence of the coup for the industry was greater competition, and for Iran an increasingly modernising but autocratic Shah. The deeper question is why Musadeq lost so much support, why there was no fight back against the Shah -a key reason is that even by 1953 economic development in Iran had been slow, and the non-petroleum sector, located in the south-south west of the country had not developed beyond agriculture and textiles. Musadeq failed to reach an agreement with Anglo-Iranian, but was so obsessed with politics that he neglected the economy and undermined his own base of support.
The coup was carried out by Iranians, with American and British help. Would it have happened without that help? At some point probably yes, primarily because Musadeq was not well and the government was weak. The Shah's father had seized power in a military coup in 1921, and was forced out of office in 1941 when he refused to expel Germans from the country (he was viewed as being pro-German in spite of Iran declaring neutrality in the War) -the British and the USSR in effect reached an agreement that Britain would control most the country (and the petroleum fields and Abadan) with the USSR in the northern provinces of Azerbaijan while using the railway to send supplies to the USSR (which were used to repel the Germans at Stalingrad). Reza Pahlavi was sent into exile to Johannesburg where there is a small Museum in the house where he once lived. So you could argue that the Iranians had been living under one Shah or another for centuries other than the period from 1941 to the coup of 1953. Autocratic government in Iran has been the norm, democracy the exception.
