Talk:Social market economy/Archive 1

Role of Christian Democrats
It is to strong to say, Christian Democrats invented the social market economy. Instead, they defended the free market elements against Social democrats who hadn't yet broken with communist ideas. Thus, the social market economy is not simply an invention of some intellectuals such as Walter Eucken or Alfred Müller-Armack (whose contribution can't be underestimated, however), it also reflects the result of a political controversy that took place in the early 1950s.

Tri-partite talks
This paragraph is somewhat misleading, since the state is not involved in any negotiations about price levels or wages. By the way, this would clash with the principles of ordoliberalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.248.1.11 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Request for clarification
"Erhard once told Friedrich Hayek..." - change to I guess Ludwig Erhard, link it and maybe cite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.73.233 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Social market economy not present any more?
This is a claim, where a citation is definitely needed. In the "Third Way"-article there is a citation of an article by the BBC, where it is said, that Schroeder _tries_ to introduce it. There is no retrospective look at it. Social merket economy itself is basically neoliberalist as well and it looks in place to me. Still, I'm not a specialist for economic topics, so experts will need to handle that. --80.141.116.210 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The European Union itself is an SME as are the Nordic countries. Lord Hawk 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NO! Some EU countries have a SME, but not all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.83 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be re-written, especially when it is introduced as an economic model of Western Europe and Scandinavia. It was me who changed the passage "was the main economic model used in Western and Northern Europe" to "is the main economic model used in Western and Northern Europe" because that is still the dominant policy in Western Europe.

All German parties adhere to a social market economy, the Social Democrats, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The latter's executive committee just released a statement named "For Social Market Economy" ("Für die Soziale Marktwirtschaft") on February 18, 2008. And Angela Merkel also declares social market economy to be the "best and most effective model".

Also, the discussion here is confusing the economic models of Western Europe and the European Union. It is true that the EU enforces a more neoliberal line, but Western Europe's elite still believes in social market economy (even Sarkozy who recently hired two left-leaning economists to model his reforms, Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen). Rocator (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that social market economy would have been given up after the end of the Cold War, which is simply not true. It is still a common basis for most political parties in Germany. I have changed this in the article and made references to the programmes of the four biggest German parties. - Timosch (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"The social market economy was the main economic model"
It still is. The "Sozialstaatsprinzip" or "welfare state principle" is even part of Germany's constitution. Following the financial ciris, a debate is taking place the USA, whether a better social safety net is a good idea or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.191.135 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for more specific detail
Just describing the "the model" in broad generalities doesn't tell me much about what a social market economy is. Are there any specific features of, say, the German economy that could be contrasted to the US economy? (192.91.253.52 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I tried to describe that properly. Goran777 (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nominally respecting the free market, the social market economy is opposed to both a strictly planned economy and laissez-faire capitalism."
I removed this sentence because this is redundant given that a sentence similar to this has been written at the beginning of the paragraph.--Ricky id (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 3 paragraph 3 in the Treay on European Union establish that the Union shall work towards the development of a "highly competitive social market economy" in the internal market. Crissim99 (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Main Elements
The short summary of the main elements of the social market economy in this article should be carefully rewritten with regard to the workers rights to participate with their elected councils (Betriebsrat) at the management level and as elected members at the board of directors (Aufsichtsrat) of companies. There is little said about the German constitution of 1949 and in particular about article 14, section 2, that private property is only garanteed under social responsibility.--Fox1942 (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What's next?
What points are still contentious? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Who are the originators of the model "social market economy"?
 * Mr. Mustard
 * Ludwig Erhard and Alfred Müller-Armack


 * Pass3456/FelMol
 * most political parties in West Germany


 * Which theoreticians the originators invoke as foundation of the model?
 * Mr. Mustard
 * Erhard: Eucken, Böhm, Röpke, Rüstow, Hayek and Müller-Armack
 * Müller-Armack: Mises, Hayek, Eucken, Böhm, Miksch, Röpke and Rüstow
 * Pass3456/FelMol


 * XXX
 * Mr. Mustard

...
 * Pass3456/FelMol

Expansion of the article
Following the advice of Yaris678: There is interest to expand the article. We (Mr. Mustard and myself) would be interested to know wether other users are interested in joining us. Furthermore we could start by making a summary of which sources could be relevant. --Pass3456 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My changes are verified by reputable sources, yours not. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not made a change. I just reset your changes so that we can work on the article in a good cooperative spirit together with (hopefully) many other users. Considering your extensive blog-log in german wikipedia and the fact that you are currently blocked from editing in german wikipedia for two weeks that seems to be the best thing we could do. We can discuss any of your changes but I would prefer to work continuously on a couple of relevent academic sources instead of power-googeling for POV-picks. --Pass3456 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mr. Mustard: Christian L. Glossner made a fairly balanced version. It is not getting better by adding outright controversial or very misleading statements. Just to pick the "opposed to social democracy". It is true that the (CDU) Christian Democratic politicians that implemented the Social Market Economy were opposed to their opponent (SPD) Social Democratic Party. But even then "The German version of the social market, ultimately a blend of Christian Democratic politics, social democratic trade unionism, and Catholic reformism, relied on state interventionism to preserve and nurture a semblance of community values and civil society in the postwar economic wreckage." (Charles Derber, What's Left: Radical Politics in the Postcommunist Era, ISBN 978-0870239540, p. 174). Since the Bad Godesberg conference the Social Market Economy was a goal of the SPD too (Gerassimos Moschonas, In the Name of Social Democracy: The Great Transformation, 1945 to the Present, p. 290), which was important because when SPD led governments (1969 - 1982) got the chance to repeal the Social Market Economy they did not. In contrary they augmented it (Mark Kesselman,Joel Krieger,Christopher S. Allen,Stephen Hellman, European Politics in Transition, p. 202). --Pass3456 (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't pull my leg. You know all this from the German Wikipedia. As you know I can show you many sources that certifies that the model is "opposed to social democracy". You wrote that the "model seeks a compromise between social democracy, Christian social teaching and laissez-faire economic liberalism" into the article although you have no sources for this statement. As if this wasn't enough you deleted my sourced addition that the model is opposed to social democracy. The German SPD was always against the model. Only since the 1990s the SPD uses the term but they use it with a different meaning. The implementation of the model was clearly carried out by Ludwig Erhard and Alfred Müller-Armack and both were member of the CDU and strictly opposed to social democracy and trade unions. That the political practice in Germany since the end of the 1960s differs from the model can be shown in the section "History". But the model was always a CDU model and never a SPD model. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last edit is really impertinent. You deleted that Müller-Armack, who developed the model of the social market economy named Mises, Hayek, Eucken, Böhm, Miksch, Röpke and Rüstow who influenced him to develop the model (Müller-Armack 1956 p. 244, 1974 p. 8, 1973 p. 250). This can be proved by secondary sources . Also Erhard named this persons explicitly . And you replaced this relevant informations by the completely irrelevant information that "According to Gero Thalemann the ideas of Hayek are inconsistent with Müller-Armackss concept of the Social market economy". Müller-Armack named Hayek as a mentor of the social market economy and Hayek stated that his friends in Germany had succeeded in making palatable to wider circles the sort of social order for which he was pleading . So why it should be relevant to this article that Gero Thalemann is of the opinion that "the ideas of Hayek are inconsistent with Müller-Armackss concept"? You know that I can show you many sources that state that Hayek was very important to the economical rebuilding of Germany after WWII. Please stop your destructive behaviors. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Müller-Armack never named Hayek as a mentor. He mentioned Hayek in a sentence that scholars widely regard as a statement of courtesy. An Hayek influence is a controverse topic and therefore belongs into the controversy section. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Müller-Armack named Hayek as a mentor. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. What about a source? --Pass3456 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See above.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is quite impertinent to request me to bide conflict resolution and revert my changes if you don't have arguments and sources for your changes. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source above does not prove your statement.
 * Despite that I did not delete anything of your POV-edits. You deleted my inputs based on the given sources. That is plain vandalism. I´m not gonna accept your censorship. --Pass3456 (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The opposite is true. Your inputs are not proven by the sources and my inputs based on the given sources. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Last attempt (although I know that it is in vain):


 * User:Christian L. Glossner wrote: Important figures in the development of the concept include Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Franz Böhm, Franz Oppenheimer, Constantin von Dietze and Alfred Müller-Armack, who originally coined the term Soziale Marktwirtschaft.
 * You simply deleted the source and added in Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.


 * 1) You are not entitled to delete informations based an academic source and simply replace it by something some Ingo Pies said.
 * 2) Ingo Pies just wrote about people who´s books Müller-Armack once read and cited. That is not the same as important figures in the development of the concept.
 * 3) A lot of academic sources point to the fact that there are big differences in the concepts of Hayek <-> Müller-Armack & the Ordoliberals. --Pass3456 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Page references like "509–525" are not very helpful. Moreover this is just the opinion of Carl J. Friedrich if this statement indeed can be found at page "509–525". There are many different opinions about the theoretical basis of the model. You can't cite all opinions. Therefore it is the best only to cite the opinion of Müller-Armack. He knows at best who influenced him. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia we take information from academic secondary sources not from primary sources. --Pass3456 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ??? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No_original_research --Pass3456 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So why you make original research? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You do original research "He knows at best who influenced him." He knows best but politicians like him write a lot when the day is long. It takes academic research (secondary sources) to find out who actually was influential.--Pass3456 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that Müller-Armack named Mises, Hayek, Eucken, Böhm, Miksch, Röpke and Rüstow as the theoretical bases of the model. This fact can be verified by secondary sources. And now stop your vandalism. It's enough. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that we should present the conclusions of relevant secondary sources and that you deleted one and missinterpreted an other.--Pass3456 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that you have no source to verify your changes but I have. EOD. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone can see that this is not true.--Pass3456 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Step: What theoretician built the fundament of the model?


 * According to Alfred Müller-Armack this are Mises, Hayek, Eucken, Böhm, Miksch, Röpke and Rüstow.

--Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I´m not discussion that again and again. Make a reasonable suggestion, until then it´s eod. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hayek actually disliked the Social market economy. --Qyerro (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected until dispute is resolved
I have protected this article pending successful resolution of the dispute via civil discussion. If and when a consensus has been reached on how to proceed, the protection may be lifted so editing can go forward. If necessary, bring in outside help via any process listed at WP:DR. -- Jayron  32  01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Info: Mr. Mustard has been indefinitely banned from writing in the German wikipedia because of vandalism and misuse of multiplied accounts. --FelMol (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Formaly his account was closed only because the dedicated abuse of Sockpuppets was revealed in a checkuser however he also managed to collect an impressive Block log over several years. To put it bluntly he is a dedicated Troll and his feeding ground was (and obviously still is) his narrowminded personal recension of liberal political ideology. A troublemaker par excellence. (B.t.w. I'm de:Benutzer:Kharon (unfortunalty without en account cause name was already taken)). --78.52.202.164 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He's but one person. Consensus for changes shouldn't be that hard to arrive at if there is significant support for it. -- Jayron  32  19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But he acts like two or three persons. Look at his reverts. Plese open the lemma again and let us see how it will go on! --FelMol (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate lead section
Which is the approriate lead section? --Pass3456 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

lead section variant 1
Proposal for lead section by --Pass3456 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Supported with the supplement "... of both the centre-right (led by Christian democrats) and the centre-left (led by Social democrats) and ultimately by the DGB". --FelMol (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added that. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very good lead. I support it.Dulcimermusic 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw
 * I support Pass' proposal as long as he changes "liberal capitalism" to "market capitalism", which is what it says in the source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes off course. Changed it. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on the history of the social market economy, and I do not read German, but the summary in the quote box above (by Pass3456) generally agrees with my understanding of the social market economy. Guðsþegn (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I find Pass3456's proposal acceptable. My understanding of the social market economy is that it is a variant of free-market capitalism that accepts a strong role for collective-bargaining through nationally-recognized trade unions and employer organizations and a welfare state. - Battlecry 07:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added input from Geremy.Hebert. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

lead section variant 2
I am an expert on the history of the social market economy and I read German, so I don't support Pass' proposal. Here is my improved proposal:

Proposal for lead section by --Mr. Mustard (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that you are knowledgeable of that subject Mr. Mustard, not least since we discussed that topic since 3.5 years. The problem is that you use all your knowledge to create a maximum possible violation of WP:NPOV.
 * Whant an example? I read one of your sources and it actually read: "Alfred Müller-Armack, the originator of the concept of the social market economy ... combines economics with ethical and sociological preoccupations. Central to his thought is a conception of "social irenics", an attempt to reconcile and harmonise seeming conceptual opposites such as liberalism and socialism, and Catholic social ethics with Protestant equivalent. From this philosophical basis, he thought up the idea of an irenic order for postwar Germany, envisaging a balance between market freedom and social protection. In this order competition is the primary organising principle, but Müller-Armack aims for a new synthesis that has a different accent from that of the ordoliberals. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that a complex and complete system of social security should flank market-based competition." page 121, 122
 * The function of the lead section is to summarize the article not to establish the most market fundamentalist interpretation possible. You are German too, so you know that this proposal is quite a burlesque description of the actual Social market economy -> . --Pass3456 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So we agree to work a compromise out. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We agree that you are gaming the system. There is no need at all to include controversial topics in a lead section. As proved in variant one. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you really think that "there is no need at all to include controversial topics in a lead section" why you make such a ridiculous proposal like you did in "section variant 2" ? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Every information presented in lead section variant 1 is a classic summary of the Social market economy. Even your version of the article represents all that information . And variant 1 is supported by five users, variant 2 is without support. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you have support by five users but I have reliable sources and you don't have. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the most important priorities when we write the lead section is not to include any statements that are controversial or that only tell one side of the story. The statements which Mr. Mustard has added to the lead belong in the body of the article, not in the lead section. Variant 1 is completely non-controversial. I think we should accept variant 1, and then we can discuss what to say in the body of the article.Dulcimermusic 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw


 * "Variant 1 is completely non-controversial"? Do you really believe what you are writing or do you always write what Pass3456 is prompting you (as you did already at an other article). --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA. If you will not comply with this policy, then you should immediately be blocked from editing English Wikipedia.  I ask the administrators to please take note of this last post by Mr. Mustard.Dulcimermusic 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw
 * Slender instead of arguments? Pathetical. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Support for Lead variant 2. It has more substance about the origins. Geremy.Hebert (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The variant is even inconsequent. If the Social market economy would have been just (market radical) theory the correct version would have been: "Even the Christian Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Confederation of German Trade Unions use the catchphrase in their programmatic publications but with a heavily modified definition." --Pass3456 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets focus on the topic by reading two sentences definitions of Social market economy:


 * Oxford Dictionary: "Definition of social market economy: an economic system based on a free market operated in conjunction with state provision for those unable to work, such as elderly or unemployed people."
 * The Economist, Economics A-Z terms: "Social market: The name given to the economic arrangements devised in Germany after the second world war. This blended market CAPITALISM, strong LABOUR protection and union influence, and a generous WELFARE state. The phrase has also been used to describe attempts to make capitalism more caring, and to the use of market mechanisms to increase the EFFICIENCY of the social functions of the state"
 * Britannica: "However, the constitution modified the operation of the unfettered free market by means of its “social market economy” (Soziale Marktwirtschaft). With a “safety net” of benefits—including health protection, unemployment and disability compensation, maternity and child-care provisions, job retraining, pensions, and many others—paid for by contributions from individuals, employers, and public funds, Germany has an economic order supported by most workers and businesses."
 * It underlines that Mr. Mustards lead section proposal stresses his vavorite interpretation of some historic occurrences but it avoids the actual topic. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

lead section variant 3

 * Note: given the fact that the article on Ordoliberalism says in its intro paragraph that it is based on post-war Neoliberalism, I think it would be an overemphasis of this fact to mention Neoliberalism in the opening paragraph of this article. SME is based on the variant called Ordoliberalism.  "Neoliberalism" carries so many connotations that are inappropriate in this article.  Guðsþegn (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Variant 1 and variant 3 contain the necessary information and comply with WP:NPOV. Special support for the information on neoliberalism. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. In the lead section, we should try to avoid terms that are not easily defined or have more than one meaning.  "Ordoliberalism" is more easily defined than "neoliberalism".  Also, "social insurance regime" is more neutral language than "welfare state".  The sentence on the "third way" is a good addition.  I believe lead 3 is an improvement over lead 1.  I support it.Dulcimermusic 23:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)JDefauw

Thanks to Guðsþegn for his proposal. But I want to comment some points. To characterize the social market economy as "third way" is no condition that distinguishes the species from other instances of the same genus (see ). And the theoretician of social market economy wanted to limit social insurances and not to extend. And the SPD never pursued the model of social market economy. Therefor you don't have any sources. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While Erhard may not have wanted much of a social insurance regime, from my reading (including the same texts being referred to here) Muller-Armack (SME early thinker) and Adenauer (SME leader) both favored a more robust social insurance regime. Adenauer presided over the implementation of just that in his many years as chancellor.  If there is better wording regarding the SPD, I am open to it. Guðsþegn (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, social security was an important part right from the start, , . --Pass3456 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Guðsþegn: Erhard was always fighting against public social insurance so you can't say that social market economy is essentially a free market economy within a relatively generous social insurance regime.
 * @Pass3456: We are talking about "social insurance", not about "social security". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mr. Mustard: Thanks for the earlier appreciation of my proposal. Regarding these last comments: Erhard is not the beginning and end of social market economics.  Muller-Armack and Adenauer are at least as important to the ideas and formation of the social market economy.  Discussion of philosophical differences among the creators is good fodder for the body of the article, but Erhard's beliefs should not trump all others.  By the way, social insurance includes retirement income (aka social security), unemployment income, disability income, etc. Guðsþegn (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of all we have to bare in mind that the Social market economy is the actual economic order of Germany (and Austria). There is also a concept for the Social marked economy (elaborated by Müller-Armack). Under the name Social market economy sources usually adress the actual economic order ->, . "A social market economy is essentially a (free) market economy within a relatively generous social insurance regime." is therefore correct. --Pass3456 (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In practice Liberalism, however had to be reconciled with the "social" component of the social market economy, a side that his own Christian Democratic Party and chancellor emphasized. Konrad Adenauer and the CDU increased public spending ... Beginning in the 1950s, the government also enriched the country´s welfare system. --Pass3456 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the years 1949-53 the Federal Republic spent more of its national income on social welfare than any other comparable state. From 1950 to 1953 social security payments rose 60%, which represents a more rapid rise than that of the national income in the same period. The Federal Republic was very far from beeing a night watchman state. This was one explanation for its success. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Above I recommended that we should go step by step to come to a compromise. We obviously agree on one point that Erhard and Müller-Armack are the originators of the SME model. And we are consistent with a further point that social market economy is essentially a free market economy. Next step is to specify the condition(s) that distinguishes the species from other instances of the same genus (see Genus–differentia definition). Guðsþegn proposed a "relatively generous social insurance regime" to characterize the model. He verified this statement with the glossary of a newspaper. Guðsþegn wrote that he knows that Erhard was an opponent of social insurances. If Erhard developed and implemented the model and he was an opponent of social insurances then it is illogical that an generous social insurance regime is distinctive of the model. And I cited a source that state that the model is sceptical towards social insurances. So social insurances are IMHO completely inappropriate to characterize the model in the lead section. I proposed that the social market economy attempts to cultivate a free market economy, within the meaning of limiting regulations and controls that would obstruct the working of the free market, though accepting regulations aimed at the removal of hindrances to the operation of competition. And I cited that source. Do you have any arguments to reject this proposal? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I challenge Mr. Mustard's following sentence:
 * I proposed that the social market economy attempts to cultivate a free market economy, within the meaning of limiting regulations and controls that would obstruct the working of the free market, though accepting regulations aimed at the removal of hindrances to the operation of competition.
 * "Free market economy" - yes, but with the essential qualification: supplemented by social obligations (creating social justice), according to Müller-Armack a principle of equal value as freedom on the market.
 * "Regulations aimed at the removal of hindrances..." - no, regulations that also realize the social balance ("sozialer Ausgleich"). The so-called "irenic formula" by Müller-Armack (which should also be mentioned in the first section) does seriously take economic freedom and social justice as two principles of equal importance.
 * --FelMol (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That figures! Dear FelMol, everybody can read that there is the word "social" in the phrase "social market economy". Hence it is only content-free blah blah to write SME is free market econonomy with something social. What does "social" mean? For Erhard the concepts free and social are congruent, the market economy is social because it benefited everyone and social justice can only created by the market . So if you want we can add that the word "social" in the term "social market economy" means the free competitive order established by anticartel law . --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Mustard: "We obviously agree on one point that Erhard and Müller-Armack are the originators of the SME model." and "If Erhard developed and implemented the model and he was an opponent of social insurances then it is illogical that an generous social insurance regime is distinctive of the model." Me: Muller-Armack and Erhard developed the SME model. Erhard preferred less social insurance. Muller-Armack preferred more social insurance. Who won? What did SME become in reality? Under their own Chancellor Adenauer (CDU), Germany expanded its social insurance regime to become relatively generous. Adenauer favored a larger social insurance regime than did Erhard. From the Erhard article we read "Erhard viewed the market itself as social and supported only a minimum of welfare legislation. However Erhard suffered a series of decisive defeats in his effort to create a free, competitive economy in 1957; he had to compromise on such key issues as the anti-cartel legislation. Thereafter, the West German economy evolved into a conventional social market economy coupled with strong welfare state institutions in the spirit predominant in German society since the days of Bismarck." So, it seems what SME actually became was more in line with Muller-Armack's (and Adenauer's) vision than Erhard's. Guðsþegn (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * +1.
 * Again, Mr. Mustard favours a specific, one-sided reading of SME. See his formulation
 * Hence it is only content-free blah blah to write SME is free market econonomy with something social. What does "social" mean? For Erhard the concepts free and social are congruent, the market economy is social because it benefited everyone and social justice can only created by the market.
 * That is Erhard, but also in a biased, Hayek-inspired interpretation. That social justice can only be created by the market, is a myth and was not at all the opinion of Müller-Armack and others. This is clearly stated in the German version of Soziale Marktwirtschaft. Müller-Armack thought that social compensation and social justice could only be realized by socio-political measures by the state and not by the market. When Ordoliberals said that such measures should be market-compatible then it means something quite different from what Mr. Mustard wants us to believe.--FelMol (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add. Some of the socio-political measures which Müller-Armack approved were: the dynamic old-age pension scheme, incomes redistribution, free collective bargaining (Tarifautonomie), Co-determination by works councils. --FelMol (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Guðsþegn: I don't understand what you want. Do you still cherish the assertion that "social insurances" are a major constituent element of the model despite you don't have a source to prove that assertion? And despite I showed you a source that prove the contrary ? And despite you agree that Erhard was a bitter opponent of "social insurances"? Maybe Müller-Armack was not a bitter opponent of "social insurances" but he never said or wrote that "social insurances" are substantial to the model. You're right that Erhard suffered a series of decisive defeats in his effort to create a free, competitive economy, which is not compatible with compulsory insurances. But despite this defeats Erhard and Müller-Armack did not modify their model. Both keep on combating the rampant welfare state albeit finally they lost this combat. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect that BOTH lost the combat. Do not spread myths. Müller-Armack saw this completely different. Shortly before his death he said in 1978: 'We are not at the end of the development of SME. We have not shot our wad'. Original: "Wir sind in der Entfaltung der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft noch lange nicht am Ende, wir haben unser Pulver noch lange nicht verschossen." (See: Alfred Müller-Armack: Die Grundformel der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft“, in: Ludwig-Erhard-Stiftung (ed.): Symposion I: Soziale Marktwirtschaft als nationale und internationale Ordnung, Bonn 1978, page 18). --FelMol (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * +1
 * "As far as the need for social insurances is concerned, the Freiburg ordo-liberals recognized that the competitive market order can be, and should be combined with a system of minimal income guarantees ... Müller-Armack, by contrast, regards the market order as an economically most efficient order, but not as one that has inherent ethical qualities. It is a technical instrument that can be used by society to produce wealth, but it does not make itself for a good society. It has to be made ethical by supplementary policies, in particular social policies. The important point is that in Müller-Armack´s case, these supplementary social provisions that are supposed to make the market economy - beyond its economic efficiency - ethically appealing are not constrained, as they are for the Freiburg ordoliberals, by the proviso that they must not be in conflict with the privilege-free nature of the rules of the game of the market." (p. 44) --Pass3456 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Müller-Armack presented his idea as a synthesis of the principle of market freedem with the principle of social balance." (p. 158)
 * The development of both freedom and social security were seen as historic tasks of equal significance. Hence, both a social security framework and the provision of an adequate social safety net are essential policy inferences of the fourth principle ... Nowhere is the fundamental difference between the German and Anglo-Saxon approach to markets more apparent. (p. 18). --Pass3456 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Müller-Armack 1978: 'The principle of SME is compatible with a permanent modification ... I remember the government incentives for savers, the approaches to the acquisition of personal assets, the dynamic old-age pensions scheme, the (improved) Works Constitution Act' [my translation] See: Alfred Müller-Armack: Die Grundformel der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft“, in: Ludwig-Erhard-Stiftung (ed.): Symposion I: Soziale Marktwirtschaft als nationale und internationale Ordnung, Bonn 1978, page 13). --FelMol (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Friedrich Hayek cites Müller-Armack´s policy prescription as an example that: "Though a redistribution of incomes was never the avowed initial purpose of the apparatus of social security (social insurance), it has now become the actual and admitted aim everywhere." . --Pass3456 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, the arguments have been exchanged. There is no sign that Mr. Mustard will give in. He obviously is satisfied with his last, now blocked, version. Would the administrator be so kind to tell the other users how the business could go on? --FelMol (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RFCs generally remain open about 30 days so that enough uninvolved people can comment. This one has been open 5.  After 30 days or so it will be closed by either myself or another uninvolved editor.  You can also request a closure at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if there's consensus that the discussion has petered out.  Once it has been closed, the closing editor will give a summary of the consensus and then the consensus can be enacted.  Once that has been done, I will lift the protection. -- Jayron  32  23:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Lead Section 2 simply because it has the most sources and none of the rest of this makes any sense to me ._.' MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

lead section variant 3, revised based on other revisions
-- Guðsþegn (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Understand the problem
If you want to solve a problem first of all you should understand the problem. I launched already an initiative in November but I did not get any reply. What is the problem with the actual version of the article? Instead of mustering multiple users in German and English wikipedia if they support his newest proposal, Pass3456 should first of all answer this question. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The topics have been unsuccessfully discusse before.
 * We whant (I suppose) an NPOV article, focused on the topic. Therefore I asked the community to contribute. This is the official way to solve disputes like that (I have been told). --Pass3456 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Enough Already!
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Social market economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Social_market_economy. After thinking about your comment I expanded the origins and the later development (and added some excellent sources). Would you like to evaluate the expanded proposal? --Pass3456 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the "excellent sources" do not verify the suggested assertions. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Mustard uses sources like "Spending Without Taxation: FILP and the Politics of Public Finance in Japan" with no deeper connection to the topic. You Geremy.Hebert may be a lot more competent to evaluate sources. All of my sources are accessable via the given google books links.--Pass3456 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But my sources verifies the suggested assertions.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

__ I'm not sure what animosity each of you hold against the other to bring you to battle on my talk page but I would ask that you wait until I can make some sort of assessment regarding the topic at hand.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Geremy, they've done the same on mine ^^' MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright I've made an attempt at a rewrite here, you can review it's alterations via history. It seems english may not be your native languages which made reading difficult at times. That's what prompted me to start editing and then I got carried away. It also has come to my attention that you two and FelMol may forever be at odds within this subject. For better or for worse please keep this in mind, that the foundation of a wiki article is facts. Economics in and of itself is murky water for the uninitiated and even more so when speaking about socio-political economics. Rife with inflection and interpretation. Trying to speak in layman's terminology is akin to stuffing 10 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound bag. You have my permission Pass3456 to use my revisions as you see fit without limitations if you so desire. If you wish to continue this discussion please move my revision to your RfC talk page and let us continue there.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is correct that Pass3456, FelMol and me are not native english speakers and of course this makes this difficult affair even worse. This controversy between Pass3456, FelMol and me persists for many years in german wikipedia and now it escalated to english wikipedia. Pass3456 reverted an edit of me without argumentation and now the article is blocked in this revision. Pass3456 and FelMol never gives reasons for their reverts. Unless Pass3456 and FelMol gives reasons we will not make progress. I am convinced that it is the wrong way to make permanent new proposals while we do not reach clarification in terms of what is controversial. I try to reach clarification for months. I can see no reason why we have to change the current blocked lead section. The current proposal of Pass3456 is absolutly inacceptable. Already the first sentence is inacceptable. To write that SME is "a blend" (asserted only by the first source) is problematic because Müller-Armack always emphasized that SME is not a mixture. The wording "blend" can cause a misunderstanding that SME is something like a "mixed economy" though it's not . Free union bargaining is just one minor aspect of many and I can see no reason to emphasize this minor aspect in the lead section. To write SME based on a welfare state (asserted only by the first source) is dreadful because Müller-Armack and Erhard were bitter opponents of the welfare state  and according to Erhard nothing is more unsocial than the welfare state . This are just a few examples and I can continue to make mincemeat of this proposal sentence by sentence. Of course Pass3456 knows all of this. But for a few years in Germany some groups like Die Linke tries to occupy the label "social market economy" and want to change the meaning of the concept. They want to reinterpret the concept as a socialist brainchild and this is the reason why Pass3456, FelMol and me will forever be at odds within this subject. The article is blocked contemporary and as long as Pass3456 do not explain what is wrong with the contemporary lead section I can see no reason to change it. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your citation does not provide sufficient evidence to counter the definition of 'mixed economy'. It only proves that those who drafted it did not want a 'mixed economy'. Regardless it is wholly a mixed or 'blend' economy (Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy) by definition and the lead sentence is sustainable with or without references. It can be said that all economies are a blend of the simple statement 'supply and demand'.   Jayron32 blocked it because of the constant revisions (more than 3 in 24hrs per user). I even tried to provide proof it was a successful model for some duration, a matter you all seem to have left out. Nobody cares what political group did what, the article is meant to describe the system itself. Nobody cares what political agenda was involved...CDU, centre left, center blah blah blah blah nobody cares if the two guys were 'bitter opponents' nor do they care about an individuals opinions about a 'anti social welfare state'. A political compass needle has nothing to do with the definition of Social market economy. I could say the 'four principles' Pass3456 uses are redundant but it helps tell someone that doesn't know any better what it [is]. You guys can dig up books and references all you want it doesn't help anyone's individual pov because as I stated they are more or less open to interpretation. I find the current proposal a suitable interpretation for mass consumption. Does that make me yet another illiterate neophyte in your eyes? More than likely and I'm well prepared to contest any counterpoint you have to my positions.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Do you really want to substitute the current defintion "The Social Market Economy is a distinctive economic and socio-political model developed and implemented in West Germany after..." by the definition "The Social Market Economy is an economic system based on a blend of market capitalism with union bargaining, and a welfare state..." despite the originators of the SME regarded the SME as the counter model to the welfare state? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah sure and I'll explain why. '..distinctive economic and socio-political model..' Now what does that explain about [the] system? Nothing, it could be describing any system or any model, it is too broad. Any and every economic model is 'distinctive'. We want to go deeper into what it is, henceforth is somewhat subject to personal interpretation. Even the most learned scholars will argue, it's how they get their tenure in universities because they are good at convincing people that their interpretation is [the] correct interpretation. I can agree to the inclusion of the words 'socio-political model' but the sentence by itself it does nothing to help the reader understand what a social market economy is.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I still don't understand what you mean. Do you really think that the characterization as "welfare state" help the reader understand what a social market economy is despite the originators of the SME conceived the SME as a counter model to the welfare state? This conveys no sense to me. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the sole characterization is it? I've told you two times now nobody cares that "originators of the SME conceived the SME as a counter model to the welfare state" It is irrelevant but you are like the dog with a chew toy and won't see any other way! What they 'thought' has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of SME! Is it a welfare system? no. does it contain elements of union bargaining? yes. Does it contain elements of capitalism? yes! And finally does it contain elements of a welfare system?! read the last sentence of the second paragraph! I'm not sure you have the necessary capacity to see beyond this contrarian stance you so adamantly defend. It may be a language barrier but I'm starting to think that it is not.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't bring this back to my talk page please, I'll watch this page.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attempt at a rewrite which I regard as very usefull.
 * Just a couple of questions for clarification:
 * You wrote that point 2 needs citation. Do you mean that it additionally needs the original source (Hallet, 1973)?
 * The addition " Although many European post-war economies were held up with The Marshall plan Germany's recovery has been attributed to this economic structure[9][10] even with the burden of war reparations (Wiedergutmachung)." is of great significance indeed!
 * I would like to keep the sentence "At first controversial, the Social Market Economy became increasingly popular in West Germany and Austria and was pursued by administrations of both the centre-right (led by Christian democrats) and the centre-left (led by Social democrats) and ultimately by the Confederation of German Trade Unions." since it stresses the significance and timelessness of the Social Market Economy (and some users actually asked for it). --Pass3456 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * i think when quoting someone directly you should provide source and i didn't/couldn't find your reference.I'm not seeing how the second part is a question :p but it's yours to do as you wish. I did touch on why I felt such political parties being mentioned holds no importance in defining the system but I can see where it would be useful.20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremy.Hebert (talk • contribs)


 * I contest the assertion that the originators of SME understood their model as a 'counter-model' to a welfare system. The parties mentioned which (ultimately) agreed to the SME show the widespread accectance within the population. This makes it worthwhile to mention. --FelMol (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the current version the reference to "Neoliberalism" is misleading. So I consider this attempt at a rewrite as more accurate. --Qyerro (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute restitution or war reparations

 * However that version mentions war reparations. West Germany had no obligations worth mentioning, only east germany had to pay. --Kharon2 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would disagree-

Further reading:Luxembourg Agreement Also- 'in 1953, West Germany agreed at an international conference in London to service its international bond obligations from before World War II. In the years that followed it repaid the principal on the bonds, which had been issued to private and institutional investors in countries including the United States.' This is under Erhards 'Council of Economic Experts'. It wasn't until the late 1960's West German Grand Coalition government, under Karl Schiller, abandoned Erhard's broad laissez-faire orientation. That's why it's called 'The Miracle'....Honestly, if you can't take the time to review and research we are going to be at this for a very long time.

'The Luxembourg Agreement obligated the West German government to pay three billion German marks to the State of Israel and 450 million marks to various Jewish organizations. Accordingly, the West German Finance Minister announced in 1953 that he expected that the reparations payments would eventually total four billion marks....By 1963, the German people had already paid out 20 billion marks' Geremy.Hebert (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Obligations from before World War II are no war reparations fom WWII obviously so if they where from WWI that should be mentioned aswell as its amount. The payment to jewish Organisations where no reparations for war but for war crimes. I will try to provide a better reference to the actual war reparations from WWII. Btw. state Budget of 1963 only was 56,8 billion DM (Deutsche Mark) so that was not worth mentioning in relation to the damage done nor was it a heavy burden for the biggest european Nation blooming in economic miracle. --Kharon2 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Luxembourg Agreement [IS] reparations and the West German government had reparations during the time that SME was utilized. If you think that 20 billion out of a destroyed, decimated, rapped, and broke economy's annual 58 billion budget ISN'T worth mentioning then frankly you shouldn't be here discussing this. I mentioned the bond payments to show why that period of West German economy is described as 'Miraculous'.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restitution as in German Restitution Laws (see also Claims Conference) is not the same as Reparation. Generaly i wouldnt argue about such an distinct separation of terms but brought into relation with an "economic miracle" in sense of "despite the reparations" it becomes very missleading because for great parts the Restitution you include to "Reparations" where actualy recovery of values from Nazi robbery and forced labour aka Unjust enrichment. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You are nothing but argument. You, as I see it, are a Native German either attempting to sugar coat this black mark or are not able to see that common english uses the word Reparations for all intents and purposes regarding this moment in time. I'm not going to allow such a significant attribute like this go by the way side. 'On September 10, 1952, after six months of negotiations, an agreement on reparations between Israel and West Germany was signed in Luxembourg by Sharett and Adenauer. The agreement was ratified and came into effect on March 21, 1953, after a delay caused by the Arab states efforts to prevent ratification.' I've countered you twice, firstly your statement that West Germany had no obligations worth mentioning, I provided evidence of large financial burdens consisting of two different economic instruments; 1)The bonds (principal only with interest deferred) 2)The Luxembourg Agreement The terminology used here on en.wikipedia that is most suitable in my eyes, and probably many others, is the words 'War Reparations'. You could say indemnities, reparations, recompense, compensation, restitution, collective reparations, recovering of property, or rehabilitation but that is semantic. Secondly the use of the words 'War Reparations' is most appropriate based on these facts. The whole of the civilized world calls them reparations with the minority using alternative wording. Your own german wikipedia calls the word reparations in translation "Wiedergutmachung" |translation . Finally the english wikipedia calls it(reparations) Law journals call it reparations. The German Historical Institute of Washington D.C. in conjunction with Axel Frohn of Germany in this paper GHI Titled 'The Policy of Wiedergutmachung' uses reparations more so than restitutions. Now that I think about it, to honor those that fell under such an evil regime I'm going to change it to Shilumim It is not misleading. You have GOT to be kidding me son!Geremy.Hebert (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No! Its exactly not about semantics i argue. Read the first two sentences in Restitution please! I'd prefere if you dont blame me for personal things disregarding AGF. The (your) current reasoning for the "economic miracle" is missleading. Giving back values from Unjust enrichment cannot be counted as economic burden because economicaly it is an socalled Zero–sum game. Its as simple as that. --Kharon2 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I could burn you all day if you want http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2003/12/15/5c0dfcd9-2af2-431b-8cbf-e8e288aef30e/publishable_en.pdf http://web.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/yb03/13peresztegi.pdf http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20147/v147.pdf

I am not going through the trouble of finding the actual court case documents through a translator but I would be most appreciative if you would :) It's where the German Federal Supreme Court calls them reparations :)

'In the Reparation Payments case in 1963 relating to claims for compensation for slave labour during the Second World War, Germany’s Federal Supreme Court stated that the claims were in the nature of reparations claims and that “with regard to the inextricable connection with the question of reparations under international public law … it is not possible to deny the right to compensation based on civil law from the outset”. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremy.Hebert (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "burn you all day" is actualy only a classic rhetorical device called Straw man. Its only semantics you argue with in your absurd claim that Restitution and Reparation are the same. Notice: "Already in 1944 the total value of Jewish property losses was estimated to have exeeded U.S.$8 billion (using 1944 currency values. More recent investigations estimate that the property of the approximately 4.95 milion Jews who lived in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France, Poland and Hungary befor the war, according to exchange rates at the time, was worth about U.S.$12.9 billion. Of that, minus the flight capital that was saved, some $10 billion was lost."
 * You can keep arguing about common use of terms but what your sources point out is only the value given back, ignoring the fact that this was for most parts gains-based recovery of unjust enrichment. Notice the Title  Robbery And Restitution . You are relabel a Zero–sum game to some "economic burden" that is nonexistant. You cannot steal something and then claim to be burdened by the enforcement of giving it back. Likewise ofcourse you cannot make such an "Zero–sum game" accountable for an "economic miracle". --Kharon2 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * B.t.w.: Deutsche Mark:U.S.$ was 3.98:1 in 1963 (refering to you citing: "By 1963, the German people had already paid out 20 billion marks") so already only the lost jewish property (=$10 billion U.S.$) infact converts to 40 billion Deutsche Mark (+ roughly 20 years interest) compared to only 20 billion restitution in 1963. You get it? --Kharon2 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I find your dazzling intellect an affront on today's educational system. Here's the rewrite based on your assertions.

lead section variant 5
Honestly I don't see how your contributions here could be seen as constructive or insightful but this is rather fun.


 * Funny you identify me as nativ German yet you asume my knownledge of german History is a joke. I would recommend instead we both start trying to impress eachother with questionable ideas of Humour we better call in some Third opinion about that unique definition of economic miracle you defend here. So sorry if i cant keep up to your high level of irony because my mood changed to state of depression when i realized how much time we both waste here. --Kharon2 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You should go to this page Wirtschaftswunder and start editing. There are many errors on that page that need your attention. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page and I can say whatever I want within the boundaries of wikipedia policy where applicable and this is highly relevant because the content which you contest is/was taken from that page in the form of a summary :) Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs)