Deutsche Bank got a lot of negative press coverage in the United States. David Vickrey, who used to work on corporate finance transactions at Deutsche Bank Securiites and Barclays Capital, has written extensively in his blog Dialog International about the involvement of German banks in the US mortgage crisis. Here are a couple of posts in chronological order (latest on top):

Karma and Bad Times for Deutsche Bank in America (April 27, 2008)

Greed and Fear: US Subprime Crisis Takes Its Toll in Germany (April 9, 2008)

The Subprime Crisis Leads to Mad Mergers in Germany (April 1, 2008)

German Government: Please Sue Deutsche Bank (March 10, 2008)

Deutsche Bank: America's Foreclosure King (January 24, 2008)

German Bundesbankers expect a gradual slowdown of the economy as a result of weaker global growth, higher oil prices and a stronger euro. They are not concerned about any direct fallout from the US mortgage crisis, writes Ralph Atkins in the Financial Times.

The article's headline is "Schadenfreude stirs in resilient Germany," but Atkins only claims once that "across Germany, a sense of schadenfreude has even started to emerge." His only indication is that "Peer Steinbrück, finance minister, has long maintained that a run on a bank, as seen with Northern Rock in the UK, would not happen in Germany." Well, many Germans are scared about their jobs and worry about poverty in their later retirement. Many are so concerned about the financial markets that they do not invest their savings, but keep them on a bank account with low interest, which is bad for retirement plans and for the economy. That's why the finance minister tries to reassure the public. That's not Schadenfreude. Perhaps the folks at the Financial Times felt compelled to use a German word in their headline. Next time write "Blitzkrieg" or "Kindergarten" or address people as "Herr Steinbrück" rather than "Mr. Steinbrück" (a weird habit of some).

Otherwise the article is good and describes what has been going on:

Germany's recent economic history has been the mirror image of the US's. Instead of enjoying a consumer and housing boom over the past decade, Germany has experienced a period of painful adjustment to the costs of reunification in the early 1990s and the effects of globalisation on a high-wage economy. By the time the global financial crisis struck, extensive private-sector restructuring had restored cost competitiveness, while consumers had retrenched financially - with house prices flat or even falling. The result was an economy driven not by consumer spending but by its powerful export motor, with industry producing high-quality goods that appear relatively insensitive to the higher exchange rate. 

Atkins ends with an FT typical conclusion:

But that is not the same as saying Germany has the better long-term prospects. Whereas the US's financial system and more flexible labour markets appear to booms and busts, Germany's economic growth rates traditionally remain steadier - but lower.

This is my favorite quote of the year so far: "Would we have allowed Nazi Germany to host the Olympics?"

This awesome statement was found on a protest sign in San Francisco. German Joys and Andrew Sullivan have a picture.

This statement is fascinating on so many levels. Not just because the author has not heard about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. And not just because of his/her comparison between Nazi Germany and China. I find the statement revealing because the author apparently thinks that it is the United States as Master of the Universe that gets to decide who is allowed to host the Olympics.

Apparently it is not just US presidents and senators (and plenty of slightly megalomaniac "experts" without any military experience) who boldly declare stuff like "we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon" or similar phrases along the lines of "We must not allow evil doers doing evil stuff." Apparently even the usually pretty left-leaning protestors in San Francisco consider the United States to be a hyperpower.

Actually, right now President Bush is not making any bold statements regarding China. All of a sudden, he prefers quiet diplomacy. What a change from this second inauguration speech three years ago.

Over at Atlantic Community, we have recommended a few press commentaries regarding China and the Olympics:

• Chinese Outcry Against the Western Media: "The Chinese believe that Tibet cannot be the real reason for Western criticism of China and call for boycotts."
• The Positive Side of Chinese Nationalism: "The Olympics have inspired Chinese nationalism which will lead to increased civil engagement and awareness of the responsibilities and rights of citizenship."
• Will the Chinese Change International Institutions?: "In the past, the World Bank, like the IMF, was traditionally dominated by American, Europeans, and their neoliberal agenda. However as American financial pillars are now underpinned by Chinese money, it has become impossible to ignore Chinese interests."

UPDATE: Megalomania and arrogance is of course not limited to the US, but also widespread in Europe, where declarations about "not allowing" Iran, China and others to do something are even more ridiculous considering our real political influence and military power. I just wanted to clarify that this post is not meant to bash the United States, but to criticize stupid and arrogant people, who overestimate their country's power. These people are a danger to their country.

The New York Times Blog The Lede (HT: David) describes a press release from Germany's Environment Minister Gabriel (Social Democrats) as "creative":

In a statement released today, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel described Mr. Bush's speech on Wednesday as disappointing. But the statements harshest words were put in the title of Mr. Gabriel's critique, according to Reuters: "Gabriel Criticizes Bush's Neanderthal Speech. Losership, Not Leadership"

Comparing any unpopular leader to an ancestor of Man is hardly original, though far more expected from the likes of Kim Jong Il of North Korea rather than a government with warm ties to the U.S. Mr. Gabriel's kicker, however, seemed in a league of its own. Losership, Not Leadership? That's a new one, according to Google.

UPDATE: Mr. Gabriel was criticized in March for polluting the atmosphere. He used a government plane to fly back from the Spanish holiday island of Mallorca for a cabinet meeting in Berlin, writes Spiegel International (HT: Bashy).

China has now overtaken the United States as the greatest perceived threat to global stability in the eyes of Europeans, according to the opinion poll commissioned by the Financial Times. The poll, carried out by the Harris agency between March 27 and April 8 and published on Tuesday, found that 35 percent of respondents in the five largest EU states see China as a bigger threat to world stability than any other state.

Moreover, the United States is also doing better in popularity contests: Atlantic Community noted: "For the first time since 2005, the number of people abroad that view the US as a positive force has increased slightly, to 35 percent."

Related posts in the Atlantic Review:

• Europe is a Threat to the United States

• Transatlantic Foreign Policy Attitudes and Threat Perceptions

In electing a young black politician with a Muslim father, Americans would do something that is pretty much unthinkable in any country in Europe, where politics are traditionally dominated by a white old boy's club (notable exceptions like German chancellor Angela Merkel notwithstanding). In this context, however, Europeans must not forget that Obama (despite having a very Europe-savvy foreign policy team) is not known to be an Atlanticist. Senator Clinton, for her part, has many European admirers dating back to her time in the White House with Bill, who remains a very popular figure in Europe.

Washington Post blogger William M. Arkin says that the "non-lethal European approach" in Afghanistan is right, while the US approach is wrong: "The notion that we can just ship the Iraq surge strategy to the country and win is thoughtless. " He blames Defense Secretary Gates for creating the public image that "if there were more shooters from Europe, somehow the war would be going better."

Arkin, who also served in the U.S. Army as an intelligence analyst in West Berlin from 1974 - 1978, opines:

Complaining about the Europeans is old sport for the Cold Warrior. From decades-old bitching about "burden sharing" to 1990's frustrations with NATO's fighting spirit in the former Yugoslavia, to the era of freedom fries after 9/11, conventional wisdom is that rules of engagement and strategies authored in Paris and Berlin are to blame for American loss. Afghanistan is just the latest refrain, and the normally judicious Gates has taken on an almost Rumsfeldian tone in calling the Europeans weak. Jump on the bandwagon if you like. I'm sure all three presidential candidates could happily articulate some version of Gates' lament on Afghanistan as diversion therapy. But the truth is that hesitant Europeans are right. More firepower isn't going to "win" the war in Afghanistan.

Chancellor Merkel attacked suggestions that Germany had taken the easy option in Afghanistan: "We're not just digging wells and building houses; we also have a military mission."  Hugh Williamson reports in the Financial Times:

In her most outspoken comments on Afghanistan since Germany came under pressure this month to send more troops, the German chancellor said she had "absolutely no time" for proposals to redeploy Nato troops within Afghanistan.