Oddbean new post about login | logout Pensions and europe The pension systems in Europe are a pyramid scheme and I will prove it to you. For the pension system to be sustainable it needs at least the average number of children per couple to be higher than 2. This means that most couples must have 3 children, which means that the population has to be constantly growing. This meets the requirements of a pyramid scheme, Madoff would be proud. When the equation breaks down, i.e. when not enough new members enter the system, the scam collapses. In the case of Europe the average number of children per couple is barely 1.5 which means that the population is decreasing, this generates a huge deficit in the pension system to the point of making it unsustainable. In most European countries you are not paying your pension, you are paying the pension of current retirees, another characteristic of pyramid schemes. In conclusion, before 2040 most of the European pension systems will fail, you will not receive a pension or your pension will not even be enough to buy bread. But luckily I have a solution, save in Bitcoin.
Here is why the governments of Europe allow uncontrolled immigration, to keep the pyramid pension system afloat. Meanwhile the ordinary European suffers robberies, murders and rapes. A country is the private property of its inhabitants, contrary to what some false libertarians say, there is nothing more communist than open borders. And this uncontrolled immigration also violates the principles of natural law, private ownership of land is obtained through a process known as “original appropriation” or “principle of first occupation”. It is the inhabitants of the country who have to decide if they need foreigners to work in their companies, who have to decide if they need foreigners to sell them their houses, to rent them or simply to step on their lands, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe explained so well. This should not be decided by politicians and even less on the basis of obscure plans, Hoppe argued that in the absence of the state, private communities could exclude those they considered detrimental to their interests. Open borders are for globalists and it is precisely globalists who do not defend private property. https://image.nostr.build/c368c6fb377cd6bf4f8088f99b0f9ad9502942b4aee352ca7c0d3158e34e38e9.jpg nostr:note1kn42y93cgcvj7zqzacfalfkmjppl8n7gs8qeugy3tx5z2f039a5sdhwwy3
true story. The German pensions basically don't exist any more. The funds have been misallocated and the failed Ampel coalition is now talking about reducing pensions in their "broad efforts" to fix their fuck-ups of the last decade. Bürgergeld, Germany's version of universal income, will be reduced or scrapped again. Something they should have never introduced to start with. In other words, the current administration has completely destroyed our social security infrastructure and they have no clue how to fix it.
Just curious, what do you then make of the following way of looking at pension systems? Regardless of any financial considerations, the very young and the very old _always_ have to be taken care of by those of working age. There's no way around it, it's just physics/biology. The intergenerational contract, as they call it. It may well be that the financialisation of this inherent aspect of human societies has introduced pyramid dynamics. But that just exists in the higher layer. The base layer (physical/biological) only depends on demography and technology and will somehow continue to work, regardless of how price tags develop. The question that intrigues me is: is the number of at least 2.1 children per woman (allegedly necessary to get a stable system) derived through financial considerations? If so, then it might be false, too high. Because deflationary technology should bring it lower, right?
Si la relacion entre pensionistas y trabajadores baja, la unica forma de que un sistema de pensiones de reparto siguiera siendo sostenible (durante algun tiempo mas al menos) seria que hubiese incrementos de la productividad suficientemente grandes para compensarla. Es decir, si a dia de hoy 3 trabajadores pagan el sueldo de un pensionista y dentro de 10 años habra solo 2 trabajadores disponibles, estos dos trabajadores necesitarian producir lo mismo que producian 3 hace 10 años, por lo que necesriamente tendran que ser mas productivos. Pero como he dicho antes, esto solo funciona durante un tiempo, ya que si estos dos trabajdores actuales son mas productivos, cuando se jubilen querran mantener su nivel de vida y por tanto los que vengan detras necesitaran aumentar aun mas su productividad, para poder pagar las pensiones de los jubilados de ese momento (mas altas) y seguir obteniendo parte de la produccion ellos mismos (y si ya introducimos inflacion en este razonamiento...) En conclusion, la tecnologia (entendida como aumento de la productividad) solo puede alargar la agonia de un sistema de reparto, pero no solucionarlo. (Por cierto, que la productividad en europa lleva casi 15 años estancada...)
