Nicolas Sarkozy to seek French presidency again

Lafayette · Sep 3, 2016

HUNGRY MOUTHS

Auvergnat said:
And do you think the shift of power from the national to international power is harmless? On the other hand I think power should be as close as possible to the individual while you insist of systematically moving it away from the individual, to entrust it to people with different cultures and interests than the ones they are supposed to represent. By moving this power away you disempower individuals. In the name of what? What justifies this sacrifice?

You are rambling.

The greater the market-economy, the more latitude it is given to produce jobs and thus employ people gainfully. If the US is any example, though smaller than the EU in population size, it is larger in GDP per capita though the gap is shortening:

151030-US-EU-economies-GDP-growth-Knowledge-Wharton.jpg

GDP per capita, I submit, translates into "well-being"; and that is a factor that is not sufficiently well debated in economics.

Regardless, it feeds hungry mouths - and, until we figure out a better way of achieving that simple fact with the present market-economy structure, then we are wedded to it ... !
________________________

gunner · Sep 3, 2016

Auvergnat said:
The lack of renewal is bothersome but young candidates would change nothing.

Look at Macron, who gives the English medias an orgasm anytime he speaks, which love to cast him as France's savior (like Sarkozy was before, and Balladur before, and...). He is certainly young, but his ideas are ones we have heard for decades. He is a conservative who wants to continue drawing the perfectly straight line that France has been drawing for the past decades. And he could never gather a strong political majority to chain reforms.

We need young ideas, not fashionable "old" candidates with old ideas. The problem is that in France and elsewhere, no one has significant and plausible new ideas; we live in an ideological void where we still cling to failed solutions and paradigms. In this context the far-right ideas (not necessarily party) are fated to win because they are the only ones who propose to break with the present, which is ironically the closest thing we have from an innovation.

I've slightly altered your post (bolded part). This suits the problem we now have in the UK, with Corbyn

Lafayette · Sep 3, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Look at Macron, who gives the English medias an orgasm anytime he speaks, which love to cast him as France's savior (like Sarkozy was before, and Balladur before, and...). He is certainly young, but his ideas are ones we have heard for decades. He is a conservative who wants to continue drawing the perfectly straight line that France has been drawing for the past decades. And he could never gather a strong political majority to chain reforms

You are committing the error of French political thinking of the past 30 years. You MUST categorize someone so everybody else can identify them.

I don't think that a centrist like Macron is France's savior. But, he is not part of the "establishment". And what most do not understand is that - to have the right formula to win an election - one does NOT NEED to be a member of any given party. Macron should be given his chance, since the economic solution is found neither on the Right nor the Left, but in the Center.

France historically since WW2 was hobbled by One Individual, called General DeGaulle. He was the savior of France - first militarily and then economically. Why the latter? For no other reason than he gave France "stability" whilst recovering. When that recovery was more or less assured, DeGaulle was no longer a necessity.

But all France had after DeGaulle was a gaggle of politicians, some ferociously Leftist, which the French dallied with, but mostly on the Right. This dalliance happened when France was on an "historical roll" - that is, it would have taken an Atomic Bomb to stop the economy. Mitterand was elected to assure that not just a small number benefited from the GDP that France was capable of generating. But, what lasting affect did he have? Not that much.

I would say that this history has brought France to a point in time when most French understand, given the awful economic context, neither side - Right or Left - ever had (or has today) the viable solution. This has happened because the Global Applecart was upset in 1991 with the forceful entry of China onto global markets. (A factor that a Frenchman by the name of Alain Peyrefitte first predicted in 1971 when he published his book, "Quand la Chine s'éveillera ... le monde tremblera" or, "When China Awakens ... the World Will Tremble".)

Nothing has been the same since, because China gutted the lower-level, small value-added jobs in both Europe and the US. With the help of consumers in both countries who had well-paying jobs and thought Oh it is "sooo nice" spending less money on cheaper China-made goods.

Those thrown out of a job and facing long-term unemployment nowadays aren't saying that any longer, are they?

The damage has been done, and both the US and Europe have only to adapt to it. Which is why I keep harping about the absolute necessity of enhancing the talents/capacities/knowledge of our children that will allow them the higher-paying Service Industry jobs. Both the US and the EU have become Service Oriented nations. In both, the amount of GDP accorded to services-industries is about two-thirds of the total.

And by free or sufficiently inexpensive Tertiary Education, I mean that practiced precisely in Europe. In the US today, the average American student graduates from a PostSecondary Education with a debt of $30K to repay. That same student graduating with the same level of degree in Europe has nothing to repay. (But, in this latter case, neither does s/he have a great number of job-opportunities from which to select!)
______________________

Auvergnat · Sep 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
The present plight in Europe (causing high-unemployment) derives directly from the fact that the EU euphorically kept government spending high to maintain employment subsequent to the Great Recession imported from Uncle Sam. Not a bad idea, normally, but in the present condition in Europe, the countries were taking on mountainous debt in order to provide that spending. Something had to give.

And it did. Interest rates rose to summits and countries (in the southern underbelly of Europe*) found themselves between a brick and a hard place. Whamo!

You love superlatives but almost every economist on this planet say the exact opposite of what you are saying. Maybe you can admit that, before you disagree with them, you should at least try to acquire their knowledge? Let me try to convey a bit of the economic doxa.

France's public interests amount to 1.5% of our GDP, or only 3% of our public spendings. This is far to be untenable! Moreover out debt amounts to only 1.6 years of public earnings. Not only that but our usual interest rate being lower than 1%, the slightest growth period quickly deflates the debt, provided one has a balanced budget (provided it is interesting to have one). Whenever one can use debt to accelerate growth, it is advised because interest rates are far lower than the growth rate. This is true for any corporation, and even more true for the government.

So would have we been able to generate growth by borrowing in the last 8 years? You bet we would have! This is the ABC of public governance: spend in crisis, cut spendings after that (unless you can generate growth). The last 8 years have been a demand crisis, and a as result we saw corporations being destroyed, unmaintained assets being lost, starting with unemployed skills. No situation would have more benefited from public debt. Yet European leaders decided to do exactly the opposite, which is a suicidal strategy according to the economists' consensus, who depict the immense risk this strategy has posed to the world. It resulted in an explosion of public debt (rather than a reduction of debt), and Europe is now facing the dangers of recession and a banking crisis before the end of the year.

Reading you commending this suicidal policy now decried by about every economist, private financial analyst and political leader is incredible to me. We have a situation like 1929, a policy that could trigger before the end of this year a banking crisis worse than 2008, and you applaud and ask for more! The main reason we maintain this policy even through our leaders know it is suicidal is that, in the eurozone, public spendings mean that France and Germany will have to endorse the debts of Spain or Italy. Without the EMU, our leaders would have already done what they must do and this crisis would have been solved in 2011 and our debts would be far lower. We would still have deficits, but this is another problem that will not be solved by triggering a major crisis.

Auvergnat · Sep 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
You seem to want to upset the present market-economy based upon capitalism. But to change it to what?

I do not want to get rid of capitalism! I would keep capitalism and a mostly free global market. But national sovereignty and national currencies must absolutely be preserved, and protectionism is legitimate in some cases.

My main point about the EU is that the GATT-WTO rules are enough, no need for an union on top of it. The historical GATT-WTO formula was quite smart, with voluntary approaches to tariffs bindings and dispute settlements. But in the last decades some tried to make all of this more binding and this has been a mistake, although it is still way better than the EU. Also I think we should revise some of its historical principles and later developments, but I doubt many people here would really understand what I could say about this.

But the question still imposes itself! What is the EU market-economy supposed to do concretely in terms of economic policy?

I would simply destroy the EU and replace it with a mere defense alliance, and independent and punctual ad hoc collaborations. The GATT-WTO rules are enough.

I would instead use diplomacy to lobby for changes of global trade rules, more respectful of national sovereignty, knowing it would take decades. I would also promote more flexible ways for countries around the world to collaborate together and share the same technical norms and laws, without commitment, which they are already doing to some extent. Finally I would prepare myself for the days where employment will be scarce: I have some ideas compatible with capitalism and equity.

There is nothing "fundamentally wrong" with the EU.

I explained why, in my opinion, it can only work at the condition you destroy European cultures and languages. Otherwise the EU will never be democratic or efficient, not that efficiency will still matter at this point (I am convinced that before 30 years everyone will enjoy opulence despite labor being optional and more casual and voluntary).

Lafayette said:
The greater the market-economy, the more latitude it is given to produce jobs and thus employ people gainfully. If the US is any example, though smaller than the EU in population size, it is larger in GDP per capita though the gap is shortening

Their GDP is achieved at the expense of very long work weeks and commute times. Their labour productivity is actually on par with ours. Besides their growth only profited to a minority: their real median income has decreased since 1999, and it was already true in 2007 before the crisis.

Anyway I am fine with France being France, I do not want to be the USA, I do not want to be the EU, I do not think civilizations starts and ends with GDP. Wealth obviously matters, but it is not the only thing. That being said I am certain we would be richer without the euro, and I think we may be richer without the EU - at worse I do not expect us to lose significantly. For the EU is not an economic project, it is a colonial and imperialist one, that I disagree with.

Auvergnat · Sep 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
I don't think that a centrist like Macron is France's savior. But, he is not part of the "establishment". And what most do not understand is that - to have the right formula to win an election - one does NOT NEED to be a member of any given party. Macron should be given his chance, since the economic solution is found neither on the Right nor the Left, but in the Center.

The center has the exact same ideas as the left or the right. Macron has the exact same ideas as Sarkozy, Balladur or Attali before him. There is absolutely nothing different with Macron or the center. Anyway no candidate in 2017 is worth anything, France will lose in 2017 regardless of whoever wins.

However Macron would be the one to do the less reforms because he would carry no political weight. You need the parliament to vote your reforms, remember this detail?

The damage has been done, and both the US and Europe have only to adapt to it. Which is why I keep harping about the absolute necessity of enhancing the talents/capacities/knowledge of our children that will allow them the higher-paying Service Industry jobs.

Every presidential candidate since 1955 would agree with you. Congratulations for not saying anything original. At least this is probably true. probably: let's keep in mind that intellectual professions are the next ones to be obsoleted by machines.

Lafayette · Sep 3, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Anyway no candidate in 2017 is worth anything, France will lose in 2017 regardless of whoever wins. However Macron would be the one to do the less reforms because he would carry no political weight. You need the parliament to vote your reforms, remember this detail?.

Nope.

I figure Macron will flesh out a Legislative list as well.

Moreover, he can be no worse than the others on the Right that we have known too well. What did they do to change anything? Nada!

If, otoh, you like pissing in your beer, then be my guest ...
_____________________

Lafayette · Sep 3, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Anyway no candidate in 2017 is worth anything, France will lose in 2017 regardless of whoever wins. However Macron would be the one to do the less reforms because he would carry no political weight. You need the parliament to vote your reforms, remember this detail?.

I beg to differ. The above is the current malarkey being pandered to the French public presently.

I figure Macron will flesh out a Legislative list as well. And if he does, the LR is going to be in deep, deep doodoo in the Legislature. The French are desperate to show their disapproval. And how would they do that if Holland (or anyone else on the Left) was facing anyone of the present figureheads on the Right (who have been PMs)?

Moreover, Macron can be no worse than the others on the Right that we have known too well. What did they do to change anything? Nada! Macron must flesh-out a solid program, perhaps in three key-areas. But, above all, he must teach the French the frank-truth about France. It is is in the proverbial "merde" because it has been unwilling to change its Labor Code - which has fossilized hiring.

I have taken Yank Business Captains who were looking to set-up shop. We established a cost estimate for a small company (less than 40 people), and all the legal ramifications of running a business in France. We did the same for each of the other main European countries.

Not a one ever considered seriously the French business case for more than a minute or two. Most thought it a great shame, given the fact that they enjoyed visiting the country. Perhaps even living here. But not a one could justify the Business Case for establishing an operation in France.

Now, this was on the start-up end of businesses. For a well-established Chinese company, for instance, maybe they would care a great deal less about the Legal Ramifications (that are about as difficult and complex as anyone can make them). As long as the CEO can find a nice pricey flat in the Quartier Latin for wifey, whilst his chauffeur zips him up to/from his office in Puteaux.

I kid you not - opening a business in France is NOT for the faint-hearted if coming in from abroad. If you are French, it would take serious courage, but at least you know more or less what you have to contend with - even if you don't like all the hassle of a monstrously overdone French bureaucracy.

That's why I went finally to dabble in Real Estate, which admittedly any numbskull can do if they can read, write, talk and breath.

France is a great place to live, but you would not want to set up business operations here ...
_____________________

Auvergnat · Sep 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
I figure Macron will flesh out a Legislative list as well.

You cannot seriously expect him to win the majority of seats with an unknown party and inexperienced candidates unknown from electors? Then you must be really young and ignorant of how electors vote and what electoral field work entails. Your first presidential election?

Moreover, he can be no worse than the others on the Right that we have known too well.

Anytime we had a big election I thought "at least this cannot be worse than today".

I was proved wrong every time. I learned my lesson.

Auvergnat · Sep 3, 2016

Lafayette said:
I have taken Yank Business Captains who were looking to set-up shop. We established a cost estimate for a small company (less than 40 people), and all the legal ramifications of running a business in France. We did the same for each of the other main European countries.

Not a one ever considered seriously the French business case for more than a minute or two. Most thought it a great shame, given the fact that they enjoyed visiting the country. Perhaps even living here. But not a one could justify the Business Case for establishing an operation in France.

The yearly received foreign direct investment for France and Germany only differ by 5% per capita, so foreign enterprises apparently find a lot more points of interest than you could perceive.

Do not get me wrong: of course there are problems to solve in France. But Macron is not the first one to talk about problems. All others did before him. All others talked about bureaucracy, and costs, and education, and innovation, and... Bla bla bla! But I still have to hear one thing original from Macron. He would use the same administration, face the same problems, have no political power. Speeches only matter for those who believe them, he has no magic potions, he is your regular politician, with as few ideas as others and less political power. Macron is poular because he is charismatic and has the good social network.

You want to believe, fine for you. But I am not into religion.

I kid you not - opening a business in France is NOT for the faint-hearted if coming in from abroad.

You think France is singular but this is the norm. I opened branches in other countries, this is always complicated. All developed countries have tens of thousands of pages of rules, restrictions that seem absurd to you, dependency to third-parties you have to blindly trust, bilateral treaties that must be studied for your detached workers, high fees and taxes at some point or another, etc. Even countries that have a reputation to be business-friendly can force you to spend tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees before you can achieve anything. Do not start me on the catastrophic US legal system or the London real estate and transports, or the small scale and scattering of German businesses, and the lack of an international airport at Berlin.

You want something simple? Go to Somalia. There you will only need guns and alliances. And your own power plant, water treatment plant, cell phones relay, and about everything else. Yet their tribal legal system will still manage to give you a headache.

Lafayette · Sep 3, 2016

THE "MACRON LAW" (LOI MACRON]

Auvergnat said:
Do not get me wrong: of course there are problems to solve in France. But Macron is not the first one to talk about problems..

What happened to Macron is something that could have happened in the US.

It goes like this: Macron took on the privileged set of individuals (called Notaires) who are responsible for transacting real-estate in France. He tried to break the Numerus Clausus that limits the number of notaires that can graduate and thus keeps the population of notaires fairly constant. Meaning, they earn fantastic salaries. From the INSEE:

Now, that data shown is nearly ten years old. However, do note, that for about the same level of study, once an office is established, Notaries in France (because of their monopoly of the market for real-estate transaction) earn about as much as four times as Lawyers.

Macron tried to "fix" that obvious preference (given by Numerus Clausus), but this provision in his bill (Loi Macron) was excised in the French Senate. Where the notarial profession has much influence. He was thrown a bone in the reduction of their fees.

Tell me how it isn't so - explain to me how "competition" does not scare the hell out of just about any profession in France ...
__________________________

Auvergnat · Sep 4, 2016

Lafayette said:
It goes like this: Macron took on the privileged set of individuals

Macron took a proposal from 2007 (Attali) about a consensual but minor problem, and was able to enforce it thanks to the socialist structure. I fail to see what you are trying to use this for.

On side note, though, notaires' fees are set by the law and unrelated to their population. Their income increased because the real estate prices increased, and their fees are proportional to the selling price. I fail to see the point of removing the territorial quotas since afaik there was no waiting time and it has no impact on the prices paid by consumers, only on the notaires' income. The notaires' system works better than what is found in many other countries (like the ridiculous mess about ownership titles in the USA), we just needed to lower the fees. Note also that their actual income is lower because of the very expensive personal loans they needed to buy their offices to their predecessors.

Macron tried to "fix" that obvious preference (given by Numerus Clausus), but this provision in his bill (Loi Macron) was excised in the French Senate. Where the notarial profession has much influence. He was thrown a bone in the reduction of their fees.

There is no numerus clausus in studies, there are however territorial quotas for offices. But those quotas were largely alleviated in the Macron law; this reform passed and the new map has been publicized in June.

So you were wrong but ironically you emphasized what I tried to tell you: Macron differs not because of his ideas (same as others) or his willpower (same as others), but because of his isolation and political weakness and inexperience. And because of this he could never become a reformist. You hope that he will be able to build his own major party in six months and conquer half of legislative seats, but this delusion simply demonstrates your complete inexperience of politics.

The reason Frenchmen now wants a strong man (according to polls) is not that they grew some love for authority, they simply know they need a man of power to submit the parliament and civil agents. Sarkozy had this power in 2007 but he wasted it because of his personal obsessions (buzz addiction, narcissistic provocations, tried to please both the left and the right, tried to resurrect religion in France, ...) and because he insisted to respect European rules (familial immigration is imposed by the EU). Macron is a charming kid but he is an inexperienced and isolated narcissistic who rejects parties, the very structures of powers he would need to rule. He would just waste five years.

Lafayette · Sep 4, 2016

Auvergnat said:
You cannot seriously expect him to win the majority of seats with an unknown party and inexperienced candidates unknown from electors?

Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.

The Left is largely discredited and will lose, in any case, the Presidential election. They will also lose heavily in the Legislature. They have already lost the Senate. So, the political momentum is with the Right.

Between a seasoned politician like Juppé or Fillon. But, these two had their chance and did nothing - because at the time the French people were not prepared.

The Great Recession in France has worked its way into common knowledge and the French, I think, are fed up with the "status-quo" of politics. Which is why someone with a New Approach would be welcome. S/he just needs to create a new majority out of the present mess.

And that is not as difficult as it seems, because the French dearly want "something new", or even "something else".

Finally, because the old nostrums simply are not working in the Brave New World of globalized commerce and national unemployment. France is a bastion of Legislative Rigidity.

The laws regarding both Market-competition and Labor must change for it to move forward in this new millennium. Try it, you'll like it!

Otherwise France simply remains stagnant petrified with the continued high-employment.

And that could be explosive ...
___________________________

Auvergnat · Sep 4, 2016

Lafayette said:
Which is why someone with a New Approach would be welcome. S/he just needs to create a new majority out of the present mess.

Once again you are too young to realize it, but "change" is someone everyone agrees to. EVERYONE. For the past twenty years I constantly heard EVERY politician, EVERY journalist, EVERYONE, call for "changes" and "reforms" because "otherwise the hell gate will open". Macron has no new approach, his ideas are the most ordinary possible ones, shared by everyone at the Century's Club. ALL of his ideas were already in Attali's report from 2007 and probably other reports from 1997 I have forgotten. You could take Chirac's economic speeches from 1988 and write "Macron" instead, no one would notice. Or Balladur in 1995, or Sarkozy in 2007.

So when you say that he "just" needs to create a new majority, you fail to realize this is the very challenge no one could solve. The real problem has always been about power: the power make reforms, to submit the parliament, to impose your will to the civil society, to the unions, etc. The problem is not to convince people we need reforms. The problem is that everyone disagrees about which reforms to do and no one wants to lose something. And it takes a manipulative and experienced sly fox with an iron grip over the parliament to do this. Macron is not this one.

Macron will probably does not even have the 500 supports needed to run the race. Because he is alone and weak. He wanted to disrupt politics but doing so takes a hell lot more than just an attitude. He will only convince young voters like yourself who do not realize how standardized he is.

Lafayette · Sep 4, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Macron has no new approach, his ideas are the most ordinary possible ones, shared by everyone at the Century's Club. ALL of his ideas were already in Attali's report from 2007 and probably other reports from 1997 I have forgotten. You could take Chirac's economic speeches from 1988 and write "Macron" instead, no one would notice. Or Balladur in 1995, or Sarkozy in 2007.

France has not implemented one formal change in its Labor Code, and (given that you live in France) you must have witnessed the ruckus the last change that Hollande (Loi El Khomri) tried to implement. The unions are all up in a fury against this law, that will loosen the number of hours that the French can work.

And this is a stupid notion for France, because work-wise, it is highly non-competitive. Hours worked by country (OECD, from here):
France - 1482
Germany - 1371
Italy - 1725
Spain - 1691
Sweden - 1612
UK - 1674
Lithuania - 1860
Poland* - 1963
---
USA - 1790
Korea - 2113
Japan - 1719
Canada - 1706

One might look at the above and ask the question, "How is it that the Germans work less and produce more GDP per capita than the French?"
Germany - 46,896
France - 41,018 (12.5% less)

The answer is "they work better"? And how is that done? Here's how:
*The question applies to the US as well. Germany has a formal program of Tertiary Schooling Apprenticeship. Like some apprenticing schools in the US, the students do both on-the-job training and off-the-job classroom. They are tested on both, and graduate with the relevant degree by profession. More than 90% of the students are hired by the companies at which they apprenticed. The program is a model for the EU.)
*France has training programs but they are helter-skelter and some take them without ever having been hired by the companies at which they trained.

So, instead of bitching 'n moaning about France's "effing Code de Travail" (Work Law), it could try leveling the playing-field and that means taking down most of its "precious safeguards" related to work.

But no - because what Unions are seeking is a "lifelong contract" to work - which no company on earth can guaranty. Stoopid is a stoopid does. (Forrest Gump)

The above explains is why the country should get behind Macron, who has the balls (unlike any other French politician today) to undertake and implement Fundamental Change. Because he doesn't really give a damn at being a "politician".

He just wants to work a minor-miracle ...

*Understand why Ikea manufactures all its wooden furniture in Poland?
_____________________________________

Auvergnat · Sep 4, 2016

You do not need to convince me we need reforms, I agree we need to change our labor laws and such, like every French citizen. I simply deny that macron could change anything. However I will no longer argue about this since you seem irrational to me, convinced that change is a mere matter of willpower, that Macron can use his will to make magic.

About your numbers, though, you make an erroneous interpretation.
* You used the average worked hours per employee. France's is lower because we have fewer part-time jobs than other countries. Therefore we have less poor workers, but more poor unemployed people. The second is probably preferable because it does not keep people excluded for too long, but you cannot call it desirable or a model either. This is simply switching a wooden leg for a plastic leg.
* You did not use the nominal GDP (in raw euros, nearly equal per capita for both countries) but the PPP one, that corrects purchasing power. The difference stems from Germany's low real estate prices, caused by their unreproducible model. More about this...

The German model: the mittelstand. A few decades ago Germany became the sick man of Europe. Their profit rate was too low, their fear of inflation made them hostile to capital and hard to export, their decentralized regional-scale economy with too small cities made them mostly unable to support globalization and compete on large markets (few exceptions). All of those problems still exist today. What survived were the family-owned SME on niche B2B industrial markets (the mittelstand), where competition was lower and let them protect their margins and maintain investments.

Then the Berlin wall fell and brought millions of cheap workers to Western Germany, and very profitable opportunities for public debt. As a result the inner demand and profit rate exploded, and SME became able to invest a lot and conquer new and more general markets. Then the Schengen area allowed them to massively manufacture in their poorer neighbor, Poland, to compete with their rivals' outsourcing wave towards China and Mexico. Finally came the expensive euro while Poland stayed out of it, so they could now manufacture in Poland, export to Western Europe, and make a profit in Germany. Meanwhile Western Europe's products, made in Western Europe, became relatively more expensive because of the euro.

This is why they have this apprentice system: students are formed by factories because their niche markets are too small and no one else need the skills they teach. This is why they can continue to run with those medium cities while the rest of the world needs more and more concentrated cities (although Berlin+Brandebourg will one day compare with London and Paris). And those medium cities are the reason why the cost of life is so cheap.

The problem is that it is not a model. Niche markets are not enough, and economies today need different things that are incompatible with this economy. You cannot focus on our medium cities, you cannot have this apprentice system. Second of all I do not think this is sustainable in the future.
* They have today twice less children than they did twenty years ago. Not having children saved them a lot of money (probably above 100 billions a year because of education and healthcare) and allowed poor households to survive austerity, but it has started to cost them a lot of money and it will take centuries to recover from this!
* Their industrial consumers are now mostly in China, and I doubt they will continue to import so many German products while they could manufacture them domestically. There is a R&D barrier but it is not that big, especially for China.
* They need large trade benefits but this is only possible if others have large trade deficits. Which is unsustainable and dangerous.
* Poland got more expensive and the eurozone may be destroyed.

Germany is not a model for Europe or France. Those who claim otherwise are ignorant.