In echoes of the story of Clinton arguing that the tyranny of the bond markets dictated budget balancing over social and infrastructure spending, there is a report in Der Spiegel (reported upon in UK Telegraph) where apparently Schoder attacked LaFontaine on that basis:
"The crunch came for Lafontaine during the Bonn government cabinet meeting of March 10. Schröder is said to have told ministers at the outset of the meeting: "It must be the first time this has ever happened in the world: the entire business community is refusing to invest and create jobs. It will come to a point where I will no longer assume responsibility for such policies. Some people here assume that one can govern a country against the wishes of the business community. That is not on."
There are political differences here, but there is also an objective evaluation of facts here that needs to be debated. Daniel Singer argued in his END OF SOCIALISM that the French experience of the early 80s showed the limits of traditional social democratic management of the economy from the nation-state level. In some sense, Blair and Schroder are conservative responses to that reality.
At the nation-state governing level, is there a credible argument for management of the economy against the interests of the business community, where any gains in social justice won't be overwhelmed by the losses due to capital flight?
--Nathan Newman