[Europe] Lorry rams into Berlin market

[New Werpland]

Huh?

If anything, we need more solidarity, not less. The only reason for these programs supposedly failing is right wing selfishness and greed. They'd be happy to blow everything up and go back to Pinkerton days of violent strikebreakers and child labor (hey, that's what the free market wanted, damn those commie socialists for banning it).

What's any of that got to do with what I wrote?

Although your random tangent is off-topic, the pension question is on-topic, since it relates to the economic justification on which this Tunisian was admitted to Europe.

Well, people seem to be pretty unhappy about their pensions in places that don't have these ponzi scheme pensions systems.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37871415

[Herargon]

... not to be pedantic, but I think they were way more busy with heiling and marching than accordeon music at the time, though I got that reference. Heck, there even is an awfully dreaded badly sung but fun version of it.

But going back on topic, because I might've walked on the line now.

I think that the German's way of dealing with refugees actually was good, given how well their refugees integrated.

Maybe compared to France. But if migrants/refugees are like a spoonful of explosive candy, France took a bite out of it and vomited while Germany decided to swallow the whole thing and hope it doesn't explode inside.

That is just a nonsensical way to compare.

[HMS Vanguard]

What's any of that got to do with what I wrote?

Although your random tangent is off-topic, the pension question is on-topic, since it relates to the economic justification on which this Tunisian was admitted to Europe.

Well, people seem to be pretty unhappy about their pensions in places that don't have these ponzi scheme pensions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37871415

Chile still has a government guaranteed minimum pension (the UK government guaranteed minimum pension is also less than minimum wage), it's just mostly funded by invested capital, rather than tax.

[HMS Vanguard]

Tjey have the same benefits as a ponzi system, just without all the costs.

What's more the capital system did work:

"Alas, benefits have not measured up to people’s unrealistic expectations. The scheme’s founders told workers that if they contributed continuously throughout their careers they would receive a generous 70% of their final salaries upon retirement. And indeed, men who chipped in for 30 years or more earned an average pension of 77% of their final salary. But most workers contributed far less. Women took time off to raise children (and retire earlier than men). Many Chileans spent time in informal jobs or unemployed. On average, they contribute for only 40% of their prime working years."

The only people who failed to replace a reasonable proportion of their income were people who didn't work much. Most ponzi systems also penalise people who didn't work much.

The protest seems to be astroturf organised by the usual suspects of unions, teachers, students, etc. not actual retirees.


edit: response to a post that was deleted

[Trumpostan]

Well, people seem to be pretty unhappy about their pensions in places that don't have these ponzi scheme pensions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37871415

Chile still has a government guaranteed minimum pension (the UK government guaranteed minimum pension is also less than minimum wage), it's just mostly funded by invested capital, rather than tax.

The government guaranteed minimum (put in by the dictator and mass murderer Pinochet) is exactly that, a minimum... far beneath the living wage level. A great system for thieving bankers, not so great for the retirees who find out their payouts are far lower than promised.

[HMS Vanguard]

Chile still has a government guaranteed minimum pension (the UK government guaranteed minimum pension is also less than minimum wage), it's just mostly funded by invested capital, rather than tax.

The government guaranteed minimum (put in by the dictator and mass murderer Pinochet) is exactly that, a minimum... far beneath the living wage level. A great system for thieving bankers, not so great for the retirees who find out their payouts are far lower than promised.

Their payouts are exactly what was promised: as I said, their payout, below the minimum level, is unrelated to their contribution.

The people who did not get what they wanted - although exactly what they were promised and could easily have calculated for themselves - are people who spent most of their lives outside the workforce, people who would also receive very little under most state systems such as US Social Security, UK National Insurance, or German gesetzliche Rentenversicherung. And what a surprise, the protest is working-age leftist astroturf.

[Valaran]

Also, for the record, Germany also has rather pressing demographic concerns. Given its replacement rate and the parable of Japan, you might want to consider this as well, when factoring in migration.

There's nothing wrong with lack of population growth or even a mild decrease.

The whole economic model of the western world is built on perpetual population growth. Developed countries with low population growth will have low economic growth, see Japan for example. No amounts of QE or spending will change that. But apparently, to many economists, it is baffling why the magic elixer/snake oil of QE, spending and handouts to the rich don't produce paradise for all.

Hovering around or just below the replacement rate (or whatever) is fine, but I never attacked mild problems; I'm talking about serious decline.

If your economic model has a reliance on a system where workers support the non-workers, this can become problematic, should the former decline while the latter increases. And yes, it's not coincidence that a good deal of economic growth goes hand in hand with population growth.

QE isn't primarily directed against population stagnation/decline. In practice, it has fairly limited aims and I guarantee you most monetary specialists recognise that; the problem is more the political significance/controversy that is built up around it (which is a number of issues).

I feel obliged to respond (just this once).

This is indeed the case. I am suggesting that it is of additional or incidental, not principal, concern, when discussing the effect of immigration.

Scaredy-cat.

By fleeing the field, you admit I am right.

Discretion is the better part of intellectual rigour

[Vassenor]

I feel obliged to respond (just this once).

This is indeed the case. I am suggesting that it is of additional or incidental, not principal, concern, when discussing the effect of immigration.

Scaredy-cat.

By fleeing the field, you admit I am right.

The Chewbacca Defence does not work in reality.

[Imperializt Russia]

There's nothing wrong with lack of population growth or even a mild decrease.

The whole economic model of the western world is built on perpetual population growth. Developed countries with low population growth will have low economic growth, see Japan for example. No amounts of QE or spending will change that. But apparently, to many economists, it is baffling why the magic elixer/snake oil of QE, spending and handouts to the rich don't produce paradise for all.

Hovering around or just below the replacement rate (or whatever) is fine, but I never attacked mild problems; I'm talking about serious decline.

If your economic model has a reliance on a system where workers support the non-workers, this can become problematic, should the former decline while the latter increases. And yes, it's not coincidence that a good deal of economic growth goes hand in hand with population growth.

QE isn't primarily directed against population stagnation/decline. In practice, it has fairly limited aims and I guarantee you most monetary specialists recognise that; the problem is more the political significance/controversy that is built up around it (which is a number of issues).

When the baby-boomer generation dies off, there will almost certainly be fewer elderly/infirm as a percentage of the population, regardless of birth rates. So in 10-15 years, the problem we allegedly face now may not be as severe, and within 30 years, may have become a non-issue.

It will eventually reach an equilibrium state, of sorts.

[Scandinavian Nations]

When the baby-boomer generation dies off, there will almost certainly be fewer elderly/infirm as a percentage of the population, regardless of birth rates. So in 10-15 years, the problem we allegedly face now may not be as severe, and within 30 years, may have become a non-issue.

The increasing life expectancy, largely attributable to artificial life support rather than general good health, might well overcome the boomer birthrate hump.

[Seraven]

When the baby-boomer generation dies off, there will almost certainly be fewer elderly/infirm as a percentage of the population, regardless of birth rates. So in 10-15 years, the problem we allegedly face now may not be as severe, and within 30 years, may have become a non-issue.

The increasing life expectancy, largely attributable to artificial life support rather than general good health, might well overcome the boomer birthrate hump.

You mean technological advancement in medical tech such as cryogenic and android bodies, or...?

[Seraven]

Fixed it for you, in case you cannot stop being ignorant.

Forced Westernization? No such thing.

Guess colonization is not forced westernization. Hmm.

...I'm sorry, what? I suck at maths, but I'm pretty sure that's not how maths work, and I can't take illogical stuff like that seriously.

Ah yes, play the insult card. Classic. Soon the race card?

I said the majority of Germany isn't migrants from the Middle East. Even if a few migrants hurt Germans, what do Germans get back? You don't see 10 Germans killing 1 migrant, but we just saw 1 migrant killing 10. No math involved. Just a truck.

You forgetting the Turkish migrants who were there ever since 19th century?

[Mefpan]

Forced Westernization? No such thing.

Guess colonization is not forced westernization. Hmm.

It really isn't. You don't want the colonized peoples to adapt to you to become capable of kicking you out.

Besides, most of the time they were under the Ottoman thumb. You know, in the case of the Middle East, fellow Muslims.

You forgetting the Turkish migrants who were there ever since 19th century?

Technically, the by far largest number of the Turkish diaspora came here after WW2 as guest workers who then ended up staying against everyone's expectations. And they, interestingly enough, integrated to a decent extent.

Fuck knows why the follow-up generations of those are getting all nostalgic over their ancestral home that they've never fucking lived in for more than the three or four weeks of summer vacation so many of them seem to enjoy in Anatolia.

[Seraven]

Guess colonization is not forced westernization. Hmm.

It really isn't. You don't want the colonized peoples to adapt to you to become capable of kicking you out.

Besides, most of the time they were under the Ottoman thumb. You know, in the case of the Middle East, fellow Muslims.

You forgetting the Turkish migrants who were there ever since 19th century?

Technically, the by far largest number of the Turkish diaspora came here after WW2 as guest workers who then ended up staying against everyone's expectations. And they, interestingly enough, integrated to a decent extent.

Fuck knows why the follow-up generations of those are getting all nostalgic over their ancestral home that they've never fucking lived in for more than the three or four weeks of summer vacation so many of them seem to enjoy in Anatolia.

conspiracy mate

[Scandinavian Nations]

Guess colonization is not forced westernization.

Too bad the West didn't have the guts to see it through and quit at about the worst possible time. The few places that were Westernized the most are consistently the most civilized and pleasant locations in their respective regions.

[Mefpan]

conspiracy mate

I'm sorry, did you plan on making sense today?

[Valaran]

When the baby-boomer generation dies off, there will almost certainly be fewer elderly/infirm as a percentage of the population, regardless of birth rates. So in 10-15 years, the problem we allegedly face now may not be as severe, and within 30 years, may have become a non-issue.

In practice, that isn't borne out, since the population disparity is too wide (in Germany), and is sustained for longer (baby-boomers had fewer children who in turn had even fewer children). And on the contrary, the problem is only predicted to get really bad in 10 years or so, when the bay-boomers have fully retired (many are still working, and are relatively healthy) and the replacement gap becomes really apparent.

It will eventually reach an equilibrium state, of sorts.

Given the disaster of a 'lost decade', a 'lost generation' is considerably worse. So yes, it is not eternal, but there is no passive solution here. A comparison might be made to a recession - clearly, the drop in growth and living standards will never be indefinitely sustained, and at some point trend growth will resume via a multiplier effect of a recovery, but this ignores the devastation in the meantime, which, given that demographic related problems operate on a generational basis (at least a decade, in other words), is rather a long time. I don't think your or most here would suggest simply letting the recession 'ride itself out' on this basis. Meanwhile, a contrast would be to the basic supply-demand model. A fall in demand will result in a lower equilibrium, but in the supply-demand graph, the response is instant. Given the time-lag between the effect of a change in birth rates, the effects a nation might undergo will not vanish quickly, but instead linger.

Thus, the opportunity cost of this period, while ultimately temporary, is still highly problematic. The problems would effect all new workers entering the job market, and all workers having to now support a greater number of old people, (given the, all resource allocation during this period (whatever may happen to government finances 10+ years down the line, if they are under unsustainable pension and healthcare obligations now, while not receiving enough tax intake, then it will buckle regardless), all companies with significant pension obligations, and the economy as a whole given a period of unusually reduced demand (all firms with low profits, or reliant on mass revenue would be hit). There would also be knock-on effects, and the like.

[Seraven]

conspiracy mate

I'm sorry, did you plan on making sense today?

Yesterday was not a good day.

[Anollasia]

This is too reminiscent of Nice.

[Risottia]

1.Why? German laws, passed by the German parliament which was voted by German electors, state they can be in Germany. Why do you hate the will of the German people?
2."Omg I am so triggered by the presence of people I don't like!" , that's not exactly the most compelling of arguments.


Just to pick some nits, how do we count German citizens who are Muslim, as Muslim or as German? I never saw anything in the German Fundamental Law that forbids Germans citizens from being Muslims.

If they are born in Germany and they have grown up there, and have at least one full German parent, then I'd consider them German. If they don't have one of these characteristics, then they still wouldn't be Muslims - that'd be silly. They would be either Muslim Levanites, Muslim Arabians, Muslim Egyptians, Muslim Syrians, etc. and soforth.

We consider people by their nationality and ethnicity first, in the Old World, usually. Whence we have ius sanguinis and no real use of ius solis as in the New World.

Because there's no thing in Germany as foreigners acquiring citizenship. Oh noes.
And because a Blutdeutsch cannot convert to Islam. Oh noes.

Seriously.

[Gauthier]

If they are born in Germany and they have grown up there, and have at least one full German parent, then I'd consider them German. If they don't have one of these characteristics, then they still wouldn't be Muslims - that'd be silly. They would be either Muslim Levanites, Muslim Arabians, Muslim Egyptians, Muslim Syrians, etc. and soforth.

We consider people by their nationality and ethnicity first, in the Old World, usually. Whence we have ius sanguinis and no real use of ius solis as in the New World.

Because there's no thing in Germany as foreigners acquiring citizenship. Oh noes.
And because a Blutdeutsch cannot convert to Islam. Oh noes.

Seriously.

The only way Germans convert to Islam is if Muslims bite them like a zombie, silly.