Chapter VIII THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL OPINION

THE POSITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL within the State, or better still the attitude of the citizen to the State, should be a constant consideration of the politically responsible. On this point I want to make my position clear as a comment on the eagerness to organize (not to say craze for organization) which permeates the 20th century. Now the inherent passion of the German for associations, formerly much ridiculed, has taken on a new and dangerous guise. It has encouraged the conviction that, if only big and strong organizations can be built up, which would be in a position to demonstrate their aims in a politically powerful manner, then the State when faced by these interests would capitulate. Obviously many large pressure groups act in accordance with this principle. If this conviction grows, the State will necessarily become the plaything of pressure groups.

Hand in hand with this development goes another, which might almost be called tragic: the experience which I have gained over the many years in which I have been responsible for economic policy has taught me again and again that, in these collective expressions of opinion, ‘mistakes in translation’ of the worst kind take place. What the individual, of whatever rank or occupation, professes, has hardly anything in common with what the organization representing him makes of its mandate, i.e. what it puts forward as demands.

This statement can be illustrated with many examples. For instance, the results of the questions put on the occasion of the strike for joint management should be remembered. To the question ‘Why are you striking?’ only a small percentage of those questioned were able to give an even approximately accurate reply about the real purpose for which the strike had been called by the trade unions.

The facts of this case do not only apply to the relationship between employer and employee. Elsewhere, too, I have repeatedly come across examples of these crass ‘mistakes in translation’.

Thus, when I spoke with individual businessmen about their attitude to demands by associations for cartels, or when I discussed the various trade laws with businessmen in retail trade, in short, when I discussed with middle class men their collective demands, I have repeatedly heard that the proclaimed ‘collective demand’ represents the individual’s wish quite inadequately.

The Future of Democracy

On the basis of this experience I believe that an organization remains harmless only as long as it seriously aims at taking individual concepts and crystallizing them, but refrains from attempting to impose its own power policy.

This is one of the most difficult questions for our young democracy, still struggling to find its final expression. The solution of this problem is in no way the task of the State and certainly not in the first instance. It is the task of every individual to see to it that we shall return to a form of co-operation between human beings, in which first of all every individual feels responsible for his own fate, and is no longer prepared to vanish in a foglike anonymity—and so does not grant the unconditional right to an institution to carry out its mandate according to its own lights.

We must keep alive the will for independence and freedom, one of the most elementary forces of man, and strengthen it day by day. I cannot believe that anyone who confidently puts into the hands of an organization all he expects from the future can feel happy. And finally, I do not believe that the best arguments are always on the side of the strongest organizations.

It is a bad habit typical of our times to think and speak only in collective concepts. Is it not frightening if only one view is ever heard from the professional groups, if the absolute is always demanded? This is entirely unfruitful and leads to sterility. Thus, for example, I have had to listen to the conception of the economy, of the industry, of the trade. Who, I ask, is the economy, the industry, the trade? Can the views of members of groups really be so finely sifted and collectivized that someone can justly speak for them in the singular? If it were argued that on this or that question a larger group held this view, another a different one, then such testimony would seem credible. The formation of collective judgment is usually a practical impossibility, if it is put forward on the basis that it is obligatory for all members.

These remarks are not meant to be a derogatory criticism of our forms of organization. It is merely a matter of recognizing the limitations of such assertions, to expose a serious problem of our social economy and thus of economic policy. I thus welcome every individual expression of opinion. When a large number of citizens turn to me in their letters, to present their personal requests, mentioning the points with which they agree, but naturally expressing their opposition to certain proposals, I welcome it greatly.

These freely expressed views have often served me well. At least they constitute a check on how the population is reacting to the events of the day. For example, when, shortly after currency reform on July 8 and 9, the spokesman of the S.P.D. said that as a result of currency reform and the measures arising from it practically nothing had changed—Deputy Suefferts saying: ‘An improvement in supplies has not taken place’—I replied:

‘If the previous speaker states that we cannot talk of a real improvement in the supply position, then, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know where the speaker of the S.P.D. has experienced currency reform. Not, it seems, in the street. If you come to my office I shall show you a whole heap of letters from workers and employees, from all sections of our people, who express their deep satisfaction with currency reform and with my economic policy.’

The psychological and political importance of such letters is in no way diminished because they can be divided into three large groups of clearly different values—first the letters from those who mean it honestly, expressing their own troubles and sincere wishes, and making suggestions which must be taken seriously; then the repeated letters of a few, who believe that they can offer a patent recipe which, if followed, would immediately solve all problems; and finally the letters from those written for reasons of opposition or sometimes even flaming hatred. Naturally, I regard the first category as the most sympathetic, and not only because it supports my case; luckily, it is also the biggest.

It is clear from a large number of letters how near to the heart of the German people is the stability of the currency, something that has been overlooked by the theoreticians who favour a slight permanent watering down of money.

To illustrate what I have been saying, here are some excerpts from the kind of letter which I receive daily:

On July 3, 1956, a citizen from Koburg wrote:

‘Millions of Germans look to you in the hope that you will be successful in safeguarding our currency and economy in the face of all dangers. This is no easy task in a world which is split into dozens of sovereign economies, which sacrifices its natural cohesion to a misunderstood instinct for self-preservation. The same senseless attitude can frequently be noted within our own economy, but it is not in the final analysis one of the causes of worry for the security of our currency. Here too there exists only the same cure as in all other segments of society in our country striving for perfection: an increased knowledge of the way in which all human contributions to the world economy are interrelated.’

From Eggenfelden in Bavaria on May 1, 1956, I heard:

‘Bravo, Herr Minister! I, together with many others whom I have asked, have heard your speech in Munich with great satisfaction. What has pleased us above all is that you, a man in a public position, have dared to express what every person feels—namely that today many have lost touch with what is possible. Unfortunately this goes right up to the top. … The mentality is always the same: to think only of the moment, to act only in one’s own interest. …’

An engineer in Backnang wrote:

‘… Economic miracle—inflation! I see and hear much of the one, while I fear the other. For the third time—to save in vain! And what will follow? The sufferers will always be us, the small savers. Those profiting will be the so-called owners of real property, those in debt and speculators. … The far from solid confidence in the State can no longer carry such a load. Inflation is an utterly immoral thing, a theft from the body of the people.’

Inflation—Wages and Agriculture

Questions are frequently asked about the cause of inflation. From Bad Kissingen this view was expressed on June 30, 1956:

‘… In my view the currency question is causally linked with the regrettable practice of subsidizing agriculture, now common in all civilized countries. It is thus an agrarian question, indirectly linked to party propaganda for the votes of the peasants. Unfortunately, parliamentary seats are regarded as more important than the currency.’

Oddly enough, it is often the refugees who, frightened by the tragic experience of having lost all, raise their voice in warning.

Sometimes deep fury is expressed with what is taken to be the beginning of an inflationary trend:

‘… If we could at last manage to lower prices noticeably, all decent people would be relieved, since then the vast differences between the newly rich on the one hand, and those who lost everything as a result of the Second World War on the other, would slowly disappear. It is high time that the lowering of prices took place.’

A hothead from Bad Ems wrote on June 28, 1956:

‘… Do you believe in the fairy-tale of the Trade Unions, that they share no blame for the rise of prices? Who else? Is the loss in the value of money a natural phenomenon, or the work of fools?’

From Obermenzing a housewife wrote on June 14, 1956:

‘… We, the citizens, are above all interested in the mark retaining its purchasing power at home. … Herr Minister, help all of us for whom inflation would spell disaster.’

An unusually high proportion of the letters came from Swabia, where many of the writers discussed the points in question with great thoroughness.

From Wendlingen on Main I received the following on April 3, 1956:

‘The conviction that a creeping inflation continues is firmly embedded. Entreaties, unfortunately, do not help. The free play of economic forces knows no discipline; no one seriously considers moderation; every participant—businessman and trade unionist—tries to make the highest profit possible without a thought for the consequences. On the side of the consumer the same lack of discipline exists. In many cases purchases are made quite thoughtlessly. Even if on this or that side some reflection still exists, it cannot escape from the whirlpool. Thus it is a question of persuading producers and consumers to return to terra firma. And that is only possible by means of taxation. … Large-scale benefits for the saver are essential. Unlimited exemption from taxation of incomes and capital for all those deposits which during the next three or four years are paid into a savings account. … Besides the economic miracle, we could perhaps experience a savings miracle.’

Questions about wage and price policy are put even more frequently than those about the general problem of currency stability. Thus:

‘… We want low prices, for what good is an increase in wages, if most of it goes on higher living costs. In addition the Deutschmark is progressively being debased, and finally German exports will be throttled by constant wage increases, which in turn will again bring about unemployment.’

From Wülmersen on May 29, 1956:

‘… Can you do nothing, Herr Minister, about the way wages spiral? If not, then inflation cannot be kept at bay. Herr Minister, I want to raise my voice in warning. Be hard, not only with agriculture, but also with the German trade unions (DGB). If an inflation should recur the last shreds of the morale of savers would vanish.’

A simple woman from Pasing turned to the Minister for Economic affairs on May 16, 1956:

‘… In forty hours it is impossible to work as much as in forty-eight hours, and that at the same wage. So an increase in prices takes place. Every businessman increases the prices of his goods and it is the consumer who suffers. Fifty years ago one worked from six in the morning until six at night and nobody died from over-work or got ill. People were healthier and happier. And don’t put up wages all the time. …’

The wage demands of the trade unions are surprisingly often criticized. Thus a writer from Ulm declared on April 3, 1956:

‘You have outlined clearly the question of a possible inflation, and I believe what you say. But as one now reads of new demands to be made shortly for wage increases from the trade unions, then the building trade will shortly follow. Allow them to make their demands, and give in to them—building will soon stop and the gentlemen can go for walks instead. I believe that the time has come for a period of calm in wages and salaries. Perhaps you will be able to use the measures you have announced before it is too late. Anyway, the constant wage increases give one cause to be afraid of a possible inflation. …’

The attempt to wage a psychological campaign for price stability provoked a vast number of letters, many correspondents mentioning their own ‘private war’ against rising prices. An arms manufacturer sent in his correspondence with a dealer, from which it is clear that he had always received a special rebate of 33⅓4% for some tools. Then the dealer wrote: ‘It has been reported to us that recently you have been using the resale rebate for special concessions to final purchasers. Please allow us to inform you that from now on we shall only allow you a resale rebate on 22%.’ The businessman in question urged us to intervene, since ‘these measures would naturally result in an increase in prices charged to the consumer.’

Not all Complaints are Well-founded

The sense of responsibility which should be shown by the sensible consumer is not always apparent. A citizen from Lenneper complained that for the repair of a chair seat and the handle of a small wicker basket she had to pay DM 50, and begged my Ministry to re-introduce measures to keep prices down. From the correspondence which followed it became clear that there had been considerable thoughtlessness in agreeing to the price charged. How could this housewife have agreed to give this job to a basket mender completely unknown to her without first inquiring about the price that she was to be charged for the work? This sort of correspondence is typical of many.

My appeal not to meet every demand for a price without questioning it has had a number of repercussions. Thus a traveller using the German sleeping and restaurant cars sent in details on May 14, 1956, about recent price increases, which my Ministry used in satisfactory discussions with the D.S.G. (Deutsche Schlafwagen Gesellschaft).

The owner of a small manufacturing concern with an average annual turnover of DM 60,000 told me that he had not increased the selling price of his product, in spite of a threefold increase in the price of raw materials. He continued: ‘I believe that an association of businessmen honestly supporting your aims would be of value to you.’

A fashion store in Bavaria sent a notice and leaflets of which some 100,000 had been distributed, giving clients a guarantee that prices would not be raised between November 1955 and Easter 1956.

‘Someone must make a start. That is what the German Minister for Economic Affairs Erhard has demanded from responsible traders at the Berlin meeting of the Federal Parliament. He meant that price increases must stop. Our firm has made a start. We declare that we shall not increase the prices of women’s and children’s clothing before Easter 1956.’

A citizen from Bielefeld on April 1, 1956, sent in an original letter received from a repair work room together with the repaired spectacle frame, which had cost DM 6.50:

‘I turn to you as the “head” of the economy. Firstly, I want to thank you, Herr Minister, for your work in the reconstruction of our fatherland. But you, better than anyone, must realize where slowly, but surely, the selfishness of our traders and the self-indulgence of many of our people are leading us. …’

From many of the letters the point is made that the sensible approach is for people participating in economic processes to examine price demands critically and refuse to accept them blindly. To give an example, here is an exchange of letters. A correspondent from Heimbach-Weis ordered a certain valve, which was sent to him with an invoice for DM 74.20. Intensive research, which led, amongst other things, to an exchange of letters with the makers, finally produced the information from the manufacturers that the regular price was DM 35, or, at the most, DM 40. He then wrote: ‘After I had finally been told of the price by the makers, and the supplier continued to demand DM 74.20, I returned it to him and did not pay.’

A writer from Langenau (Württemberg) drew my attention in mid-March 1956 to the fact that in sales talk the remark: ‘Buy, prices are rising’ was often heard. And many people are so lacking in conscience that they spread this poison.

Many letters are concerned with concealed price changes. One client who for years had bought certain pastilles reported, with considerable annoyance, that the normal package suddenly contained only 40 instead of 51 pastilles as hitherto. The correspondence between the manufacturer and my Ministry led to the former openly acknowledging that he believed that, with this concealed price increase of 20%, he met the wishes of his clients better than by an immediate and necessary price increase.

Lower Duties are Popular

Agrarian politics, or rather the criticisms regarding the ‘Green Front’, are a constant talking point. An unusually large number of letters discuss these questions. Here are some examples:

‘Herr Professor Dr. Erhard, the people of all classes look to you. Thus I beg you to lead a relentless fight against your opponents, who, instead of lowering prices, want to raise them in opposition to your views.’

A housewife wrote:

‘… We housewives read in the papers with great pleasure of your intention to bring about a lowering of prices of foodstuffs. … To lower prices cannot be so difficult, and in my view must begin with agriculture. It seems advisable to examine the trade margin of the abattoirs, the dairies and the retail traders. Meat cattle prices drop again and again, yet meat and sausage prices remain unchanged. And every butcher drives an Opel Kapitän or Mercedes. … Herr Minister, by bringing about lower prices you will win great praise, and we, the housewives, shall be especially grateful. We wish you every success.’

A citizen from Stuttgart-Degerloch was enraged by the wrecking of the original plan to include agriculture in the 30% tariff reductions:

‘The result is, as it so often is, that the consumer will suffer; it is a well-proven way of allowing the consumer to carry the burden. The devil takes the hindmost.’

The same theme was discussed by an architect from a small village in the Odenwald:

‘As regards the 30% tariff reduction I should like to tell you of my own experience: I have an estate in … a village with … houses. This area of the northern Odenwald is regarded as poor. During the past four or five years almost every second farmer in this village has put up new agricultural buildings and also new homes and—what is to be welcomed—has bought new farming implements. Every farmer’s son has also bought his own motor-cycle. … I do not grudge the farmers, with whom I am on the best of terms, this greater prosperity, but I do not on the other hand understand the cries of woe about agriculture facing ruin and thus being unable to survive a lowering of tariffs.’

Sceptical voices are not only raised about agriculture. During the discussions about lowering tariffs for farm products, I received a furious telegram:

‘Farm voters protest energetically against intended lower tariffs for agricultural imports. Measure hits agriculture with full force, and undoes effects of Green Plan. We expect withdrawal of your tariff plans, where they concern agricultural products.’

A carefully worded reply could not be delivered, in spite of all the efforts of the Post Office, and of a number of other organizations.

Such protests also bring about counter-protests; I received the following telegram:

‘Consumers in the whole Federal area, especially housewives, to whom Chancellor recommends counting every penny, warmly welcome lowering of tariffs, and expect passing of your tariff proposals in full. It is high time to take effective measures, which will put a stop to the permanent increase in prices. … Do not weaken in the face of protests from agriculture, which, though it has its troubles, is basically no worse off than the millions of recipients of medium and small incomes, who hope for a certain easement of their position as a result of the tariff proposals.’

Another correspondent from Frankfurt wrote:

‘We follow your deeds with admiration, but have nevertheless regretted that you weakened in the discussions. You will see that the people will continue to remain dissatisfied.’

On May 13, 1956, the Ministry received this from Rheinberg in the Rhineland:

‘…The big economic successes of the past eight years were only possible since the people had confidence in you. … Surely there are enough ways to stop the increase in prices. Why don’t you lower tariffs? Why is rearmament being organized at such a brisk pace? Why are no brakes applied to the building activities of the Government, the Länder and the local authorities. …? Herr Minister, we, the savers, hope you and the Federal Government will be successful in keeping the currency stable.’

On July 18, 1956, a Munich citizen expressed his rage with the breakdown of talks for a comprehensive lowering of tariffs.

‘I find it incomprehensible that the lowering of tariffs which you introduced should have foundered. It seems as if important positions were occupied by agriculturists or others who don’t mind price increases, and for whom perhaps this means good business. …’

Some correspondents sent clear warnings. Thus, a citizen from Stuttgart on June 2, 1956, who had been following my efforts ‘with increasing apprehension’, wrote:

‘… to preserve the German economic miracle from the fate of other miracles. Why do you not act with more energy? Is not the stability of prices the foundation of well-being? … I believe, Herr Minister, that a section of the economy no longer has the kind of social conscience which you expect from it. … Do not look to the coming Federal parliamentary elections, but instead secure yourself a place in the history of the German people. See that your principles, which millions of German people support, are energetically and logically applied. Our democracy needs a firm hand, if it is not to founder.’

The public here frequently overlooks that for any government there are frontiers beyond which it cannot act, and that the Minister for Economic Affairs cannot carry responsibility for everything important that happens in the economic sector.

From Stuttgart a letter of March 27, 1956, said:

‘I read in the daily press that the hourly wages of building workers are to be raised again by 8 pfennigs from April 1, 1956. I am horrified. This damnable creeping inflation, where will it lead to? Do you know, Herr Minister, that this is open fraud.’

Very plain words were used in a letter of March 6, 1956:

‘Dear Herr Minister, You promised us some lower prices. So far this has not come about. On the contrary, some prices have risen, and, unfortunately, it is your colleagues who have opposed your efforts. We are just where we were in the Third Reich. This cannot end happily.’

From Brazil, Hand-made Paper and Gold Coins

Frequently, reference is made to details. Thus some Brazilians and former Germans who emigrated to Brazil wrote at the end of 1955 from Santa Catarina, Brazil:

‘In many ways we like you best of all of the Government people there in Germany, because you are decidedly a man of freedom. When you firmly opposed the attempts to form cartels we were one hundred per cent for you. … Monopoly capitalism opposes freedom; it is the opposite of freedom if one group of citizens takes advantage of the others. Now we have been asking for some years: Is not Erhard aware that a group of striking workers does just that, if, by threatening mass strikes, it uses blackmail for more wages. If cartels are suppressed then strikes must be suppressed too.’

Naturally, there are many letters which, following some unpopular measure, prophesy chaos. On May 12, 1956, a manufacturer wrote from Paderborn:

‘If, to control the boom, credit restrictions are to be introduced, this can only be done in stages. If it were done in one go, a catastrophe would follow … our way so far leads inevitably towards Communism. …’

Frequently, well-known men comment on current problems. For example, on January 14, 1956, the president of the board of a well-known industrial concern wrote:

‘I should be very grateful for your advice on how the … industry should behave in the face of price threats. It is fighting a hard battle for its existence, in view, too, of the totally incomprehensible price policy of your basic industries which, as is clearly shown by their recent balance sheets, work with large margins of profit.’

The desire to simplify the administration appears in many and unexpected ways. Thus a dentist from Giessen sent three communications from the Federal Association for Air Defence printed on fine paper, elegantly finished. He said: ‘Unfortunately, this gives the impression that the much urged economic discipline does not apply to Ministries and public authorities.’

Besides letters of protest and criticism, there are others of appreciation, often containing valuable ideas.

During the discussion about the usefulness of the BDL measures a writer from Stuttgart declared on May 8, 1956:

‘I very much hope that in co-operation with the BDL you will be successful in keeping the reins firmly in your hand, so that the Bill will tighten its restrictive policy rather than slacken it.’

On November 21, 1953, a writer from Cologne had this to say:

‘I read in the paper your speech to the Association for Action for the Social Market Economy. Without a doubt your activities played the greatest part in the electoral success. Please continue to show the same courage, the same attitude, which you have shown in supporting competition, towards the administration. This vast administrative apparatus is insupportable for an economy which is itself up against stiff competition.’

A manufacturer from Remscheid-Lennep wrote on April 30, 1956:

‘… It is not flattery when I report to you that the economy is convinced that you are up to your job. I should not like to have your post. When I saw you a few days ago on television, I got the impression that you are perhaps too good-hearted. And it would be expedient if you dealt differently with your opponents.’

On February 22, a citizen from Bauschlott near Pforzheim commented on my advice to be moderate:

‘In the past few days I have read your warning about the fresh dissatisfaction of all sections of the German population. That you have expressed such views is much to be welcomed. … It is bad politics for poverty to be discussed at meetings of industry and trade when in front of the meeting hall stand dozens of Mercedes cars. I have nothing against wealth, but I think it inappropriate to grumble all the time. But, unfortunately, it is just those sectors that have experienced a marked improvement and an increase in their capital who feel no sense of responsibility towards the Government, but instead would make agreements with the devil, if only something could be gained by it. …’

Among the many letters there are many curiosities. A retail trade business in a large West German city sent without comment several bags in which its goods are packed, on the back of which is inscribed: ‘Erhard is right! Many prices would fall if everyone always chose the best offer. It is up to you.’

Several writers put forward this or a similar suggestion:

‘The Federal Bank should mint a milliard gold coins, and while withdrawing a milliard of paper money put these into circulation in payments for wages and salaries. These gold coins would immediately be hoarded, and would reduce purchasing power possibly by a milliard.’

On July 14, 1956, a Berlin citizen ended a communication with this statement:

‘I am in possession of the reply of your Ministry … to my letter to you, for which I thank you. Even if the answer falls far short of my expectations, I have at least the satisfaction that it is not true—as frequently stated—that letters sent to a Minister land in the waste paper basket of the ante-chamber. I shall now refute such remarks.’