The Polish minister of foreign affairs Jacek Czaputowicz announced today that consul Sławomir Kowalski will stay in Norway as planned until end of June. He stressed that authorities in Warsaw approves of the good work he has been doing. This, according to PolskieRadio24.pl.
Original article in Norwegian.
Czaputowicz is of the opinion that the consul has executed his duties well during his more than five years in Norway, and that there is no reason for any early dismissal.
- We are not of the opinion that Norway has any legitimate grievances regarding consul Kowalski's work. We are keeping a close eye on this. We see no reason for any extraordinary action.
- We have not received any formal request regarding this case. If such a request is forthcoming, we will act according to the circumstances.
Foreign minister Czaputowicz added: - Norwegian media write, with reference Kristen Koalisjon Norge, that Slawomir Kowalski is known for his involvement and actions on behalf of Polish families that feel themselves threatened by the actions of the Norwegian Child Protection services.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019
Polish diplomat asked to go home
Slawomir Kowalski has assisted Polish families who have come into conflict with the Norwegian Child Protection service.
Original article in Norwagian by Finn-Ove Hågensen
The Norwegian foreign office has asked the Polish government to recall consul Slawomir Kowalski, currently stationed at the Polish embassy in Oslo.
Senior consultant Per B Wiggen at the foreign office confirms in an e-mail received by TV 2 that Kowalski is no longer welcome in Norway. The reason for this is that «his behavior in a range of cases, some including public servants, has been inconsistent with his role as a diplomat».
It is stressed that this case does not affect the good relation between Poland and Norway. The foreign office will not expand on the reason why the consul is no longer welcome. However, TV 2 know that Kowalski has been in conflict with the Norwegian Child Protection service on multiple occasions.
Police assistance
Last year in August, the diplomat was asked to assist a Polish family in Akershus. They were about to loose custody of their four children. However, Kowalski was physically prevented from taking part in the meeting with the Child Protection service when he arrived together with a child psychologist. Artur Kubik, an employee of the Polish labor union Solidaritet's office in Norway, who knows both the distressed family and Kowalski, can attest that his happened.
– This is a breach of the Wien convention. The consul had every right to attend the meeting.
The Child Protection service called in the police who promptly removed the diplomat from the premises.
This is not the only time the consul has been in conflict with the Child Protection service and Norwegian police. The web pages of Christian Coalition Norway describe an episode last year where Kowalski was expelled from a Polish home in Akershus by police officers who acted on behalf of the Child Protection service. This family was also in the process of loosing custody of their children.
Slamovir Kowalski, as well as the Polish ambassador, declined to comment to TV 2.
Consul of the year
The consul has in his five years in Norway helped more than 150 families who have come into conflict with the Child Protection service. This according to Artur Kubik. The Polish foreign office declared him «consul of the year» in 2016.
Kubik tells TV 2 that he cannot understand this expulsion:
– Any claims of aggressive behavior by the consul is pure nonsense. On the contrary, he has always acted according to the rules. He has helped many Polish families.
Consul Slawomir Kowalski has received a tree weeks notice to leave Norway. However, senior consultant Per B. Wiggen at the foreign office is unwilling to call it an expulsion.
– This is merely a recommendation. We are asking Polish authorities to call Kowalski home to Poland, that's not an expulsion.
– So he may stay in Norway?
– That's correct, concludes Wiggen.
(The polish government has since chosen to keep the consul in his current position until his scheduled dismissal in June.)
Original article in Norwagian by Finn-Ove Hågensen
The Norwegian foreign office has asked the Polish government to recall consul Slawomir Kowalski, currently stationed at the Polish embassy in Oslo.
Senior consultant Per B Wiggen at the foreign office confirms in an e-mail received by TV 2 that Kowalski is no longer welcome in Norway. The reason for this is that «his behavior in a range of cases, some including public servants, has been inconsistent with his role as a diplomat».
It is stressed that this case does not affect the good relation between Poland and Norway. The foreign office will not expand on the reason why the consul is no longer welcome. However, TV 2 know that Kowalski has been in conflict with the Norwegian Child Protection service on multiple occasions.
Police assistance
Last year in August, the diplomat was asked to assist a Polish family in Akershus. They were about to loose custody of their four children. However, Kowalski was physically prevented from taking part in the meeting with the Child Protection service when he arrived together with a child psychologist. Artur Kubik, an employee of the Polish labor union Solidaritet's office in Norway, who knows both the distressed family and Kowalski, can attest that his happened.
– This is a breach of the Wien convention. The consul had every right to attend the meeting.
The Child Protection service called in the police who promptly removed the diplomat from the premises.
This is not the only time the consul has been in conflict with the Child Protection service and Norwegian police. The web pages of Christian Coalition Norway describe an episode last year where Kowalski was expelled from a Polish home in Akershus by police officers who acted on behalf of the Child Protection service. This family was also in the process of loosing custody of their children.
Slamovir Kowalski, as well as the Polish ambassador, declined to comment to TV 2.
Consul of the year
The consul has in his five years in Norway helped more than 150 families who have come into conflict with the Child Protection service. This according to Artur Kubik. The Polish foreign office declared him «consul of the year» in 2016.
Kubik tells TV 2 that he cannot understand this expulsion:
– Any claims of aggressive behavior by the consul is pure nonsense. On the contrary, he has always acted according to the rules. He has helped many Polish families.
Consul Slawomir Kowalski has received a tree weeks notice to leave Norway. However, senior consultant Per B. Wiggen at the foreign office is unwilling to call it an expulsion.
– This is merely a recommendation. We are asking Polish authorities to call Kowalski home to Poland, that's not an expulsion.
– So he may stay in Norway?
– That's correct, concludes Wiggen.
(The polish government has since chosen to keep the consul in his current position until his scheduled dismissal in June.)
Polish Embassy in Oslo
Commercial vs. Political Power
Politicians will have us believe that true power and control over our lives comes through politics. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The more things are regulated politically, the less power we as individuals have over our lives.
Let us for instance suppose that we live in a country where schools are regulated politically. There is a common curriculum for all children. Every child, no matter their individual needs or desires have to go through the same standard educational process. The only way a parent can influence such a system is through political action. For this to be effective requires activism, campaigning and a great deal of persuasion.
However, this enormous effort is not likely to result in any change unless a sufficiently large group of people can be persuaded to join the movement. In many cases, where needs are particularly unique, it is impossible to create a sufficiently large movement.
However, in a private school system, parents can simply select a different school, more in tune with the needs and desires of their children. If they have children of different abilities, they can choose different schools for all of them. No activism is needed. There is no need for debates and persuasion.
This is true for any service or product. As individuals, we are far better off when things are freely traded rather than regulated politically.
Let us for instance suppose that we live in a country where schools are regulated politically. There is a common curriculum for all children. Every child, no matter their individual needs or desires have to go through the same standard educational process. The only way a parent can influence such a system is through political action. For this to be effective requires activism, campaigning and a great deal of persuasion.
However, this enormous effort is not likely to result in any change unless a sufficiently large group of people can be persuaded to join the movement. In many cases, where needs are particularly unique, it is impossible to create a sufficiently large movement.
However, in a private school system, parents can simply select a different school, more in tune with the needs and desires of their children. If they have children of different abilities, they can choose different schools for all of them. No activism is needed. There is no need for debates and persuasion.
This is true for any service or product. As individuals, we are far better off when things are freely traded rather than regulated politically.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
What? No breaks?
The stated purpose of central banking is to ensure price stability. If the central bankers find that prices fall too much, they inject currency into the economy to stop them from falling. If they find that prices go up too much, they extract currency.
The thinking is that more currency will cause prices to rise and less currency will cause prices to fall.
The way central bankers operate this scheme is by buying and selling assets, typically government bonds or shares in large corporations. To inject currency into the economy, central bankers conjure up currency from nothing with which they buy financial assets. The central bank gets an asset and the seller gets currency with which to drive up prices. Conversely, to drive prices down, the central bank sells an asset. The currency received is then returned to null. With less currency in the economy, prices will fall.
Central banks expand money supply by buying stuff for currency created from nothing. They return currency to nothing by selling stuff.
Apart from the moral issue of giving a select group of people the privilege to buy stuff for nothing, there are two other problems with this system.
Prices are signals to the economy. A price rise signals scarcity and a need to invest. If this signal is countered by central bank interference, needed investments will not happen. Conversely, falling prices signal over-investments and a need to shift focus onto more productive activities. The stated goal of central banking is therefore an error in itself. Prices are important signals and should not be interfered with. The only possible result of their interference is distortion, and hence sub-optimal resource allocations.
Another problem is that central banks cannot in actual fact make prices go down over time. They can only make them go up. Price stability is therefore not possible. When a central bank buys shares in a corporation like Apple, it drives up the price of this asset. It pays more than what the market would have done on its own. The assets on the central bank's balance sheet have been acquired at too high a price. When the central bank sees core inflation go up and time comes to sell Apple shares so that currency can be drained from the economy, chances are that these shares have already fallen by quite a lot. People have already started selling Apple shares in order to cover rising prices in food, fuel and other essentials.
Determined to keep a lid on core inflation, central banks will sell their assets into a falling market. This puts additional pressure on asset prices. However, if core inflation is due to a real shortage of essential goods, core inflation may continue up even as currency is drained from the economy. Additional asset sales will be needed in order to keep prices down, driving down central bank asset prices even more.
However, there's not enough assets available on the central bank's balance sheets to withdraw sufficient currency to keep a lid on core inflation. Central banks are therefore powerless to keep a lid on a sudden spike in core inflation. As things stand right now, there is far more currency in circulation than there are assets on central bank's balance sheets.
Central banks can still inject currency into the economy. However, they have long since lost the ability to withdraw substantial amounts of currency. They can stoke prices higher, but they cannot put on the breaks. When core inflation stars rising, there is nothing central banks can do to stop it.
The thinking is that more currency will cause prices to rise and less currency will cause prices to fall.
The way central bankers operate this scheme is by buying and selling assets, typically government bonds or shares in large corporations. To inject currency into the economy, central bankers conjure up currency from nothing with which they buy financial assets. The central bank gets an asset and the seller gets currency with which to drive up prices. Conversely, to drive prices down, the central bank sells an asset. The currency received is then returned to null. With less currency in the economy, prices will fall.
Central banks expand money supply by buying stuff for currency created from nothing. They return currency to nothing by selling stuff.
Apart from the moral issue of giving a select group of people the privilege to buy stuff for nothing, there are two other problems with this system.
Prices are signals to the economy. A price rise signals scarcity and a need to invest. If this signal is countered by central bank interference, needed investments will not happen. Conversely, falling prices signal over-investments and a need to shift focus onto more productive activities. The stated goal of central banking is therefore an error in itself. Prices are important signals and should not be interfered with. The only possible result of their interference is distortion, and hence sub-optimal resource allocations.
Another problem is that central banks cannot in actual fact make prices go down over time. They can only make them go up. Price stability is therefore not possible. When a central bank buys shares in a corporation like Apple, it drives up the price of this asset. It pays more than what the market would have done on its own. The assets on the central bank's balance sheet have been acquired at too high a price. When the central bank sees core inflation go up and time comes to sell Apple shares so that currency can be drained from the economy, chances are that these shares have already fallen by quite a lot. People have already started selling Apple shares in order to cover rising prices in food, fuel and other essentials.
Determined to keep a lid on core inflation, central banks will sell their assets into a falling market. This puts additional pressure on asset prices. However, if core inflation is due to a real shortage of essential goods, core inflation may continue up even as currency is drained from the economy. Additional asset sales will be needed in order to keep prices down, driving down central bank asset prices even more.
However, there's not enough assets available on the central bank's balance sheets to withdraw sufficient currency to keep a lid on core inflation. Central banks are therefore powerless to keep a lid on a sudden spike in core inflation. As things stand right now, there is far more currency in circulation than there are assets on central bank's balance sheets.
Central banks can still inject currency into the economy. However, they have long since lost the ability to withdraw substantial amounts of currency. They can stoke prices higher, but they cannot put on the breaks. When core inflation stars rising, there is nothing central banks can do to stop it.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
How to Boycott a Brand You're not Using
Let's say you've seen a particularly offensive ad that goes very much against what you believe, and you want to boycott the brand to show what you think. However, you are not using the brand. It is something you never buy. Case in point, the latest Gillette ad appears to have hit a nerve with many people, women and men alike. But many of the offended consumers are not consumers of Gillette products. How then can they effectively boycott Gillette?
They can of course take to social media and announce their dislike, but that is not direct action. It merely directs attention of other people to what you personally find offensive. You might not want to do that. What you want is something more discrete and at the same time more direct.
The answer to this dilemma lies in the fact that brands are owned by large corporations. Gillette is not an independent company. It is owned by P&G. This means that we do not have to boycott Gillette directly to make an impact. We can boycott any of P&G's brands, and there's a lot to choose from.
In fact, a comprehensive boycott of all of P&G's brands is in any case the most effective way to drive in the message. If every offended consumer stays away from all of P&G's brands, and not just Gillette, the company will take a serious hit.
They can of course take to social media and announce their dislike, but that is not direct action. It merely directs attention of other people to what you personally find offensive. You might not want to do that. What you want is something more discrete and at the same time more direct.
The answer to this dilemma lies in the fact that brands are owned by large corporations. Gillette is not an independent company. It is owned by P&G. This means that we do not have to boycott Gillette directly to make an impact. We can boycott any of P&G's brands, and there's a lot to choose from.
In fact, a comprehensive boycott of all of P&G's brands is in any case the most effective way to drive in the message. If every offended consumer stays away from all of P&G's brands, and not just Gillette, the company will take a serious hit.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Buy and Hold
When it comes to investing, there are all sorts of "systems" of which only one has any merit. That's the Dow Gold ratio method described in my book on the subject.
However, the Dow Gold method is not the most popular, probably because it advocates staying away from the stock market for prolonged periods of time. This does not generate any revenue for fond managers and the like.
The far more popular system is the buy and hold strategy in which the investor sits patiently through any downturn, buying stocks whenever he can afford and remaining calm throughout. This strategy would have produced positive results for anyone investing in the US or in Norway. However, it would not have worked out very well for the Portuguese investor. The Lisbon stock exchange is down 60% in nominal terms since 1998. Over a period of 20 years, the investor playing buy and hold in Lisbon would have lost money. Even if he was lucky enough to catch many low points, he would still be down.
Gold, on the other hand has had about 400% gain during the same period.
This should serve as a warning to anyone following the buy and hold strategy. Sooner or later, all stock exchanges experience a Lisbon like decline. To stay invested in stocks during such a prolonged downturn can ruin a lifetime of savings.
The trick to success is not to stay invested in stocks all the time but to identify when stocks are cheap and when they are expensive. That's where the Dow Gold ratio comes in handy.
However, the Dow Gold method is not the most popular, probably because it advocates staying away from the stock market for prolonged periods of time. This does not generate any revenue for fond managers and the like.
The far more popular system is the buy and hold strategy in which the investor sits patiently through any downturn, buying stocks whenever he can afford and remaining calm throughout. This strategy would have produced positive results for anyone investing in the US or in Norway. However, it would not have worked out very well for the Portuguese investor. The Lisbon stock exchange is down 60% in nominal terms since 1998. Over a period of 20 years, the investor playing buy and hold in Lisbon would have lost money. Even if he was lucky enough to catch many low points, he would still be down.
Gold, on the other hand has had about 400% gain during the same period.
This should serve as a warning to anyone following the buy and hold strategy. Sooner or later, all stock exchanges experience a Lisbon like decline. To stay invested in stocks during such a prolonged downturn can ruin a lifetime of savings.
The trick to success is not to stay invested in stocks all the time but to identify when stocks are cheap and when they are expensive. That's where the Dow Gold ratio comes in handy.
 |
| Gold eagle |
Public Domain, Link
A Quiet Revolution
A number of people in the Yellow West movement are now advocating the withdrawal of cash from banks. If enough people do this, banks will get in trouble for having too little collateral to support their loans. This will in turn destabilize the current political system with its high reliance on banks. It is for this reason illegal to advocate bank runs. It is considered subversive far beyond what can be achieved by a mere street riot.
However, most people live under the impression that revolution has to be fought in the streets. The correct political move under the current circumstances would therefore be to let the protesters back into the streets. As long as they are merely throwing stones at police officers and kicking in windows, the political elite is safe. It is only when cash stars flowing out of banks that things get serious.
Clamping down on street protests was a big political mistake. It has forced people to consider alternative ways to protest. People who never thought that the act of cash withdrawal can be viewed as subversive are now fully aware of this. They may even slowly come to realize what the full damage would be if everyone were to do this at the same time.
Furthermore, it does not take a lot of thinking to go from realizing that cash withdrawals are subversive to the fact that gold is a better store of value than cash. An alternative to withdraw cash directly is therefore to buy gold.
At first glance, this may appear counter productive. The cash spent remains in the system after all. However, gold is in this way extracted from the system, and it is this monetary metal that is at the base of all financial systems. We may not be on an official gold standard, but the financial elite is very much aware that everything they do is measured against the price of gold. If the price of gold starts rising faster than paper assets such as cash in savings accounts and bonds, all hell breaks loose. It would mean that a cold piece of metal is a better investing agent than a banker.
A truly revolutionary move is therefore to withdraw cash for everyday use and put saving in gold. As an added bonus, such a strategy is likely to yield a better return than holding cash in a bank. It may even return better than any other investment strategy. This would be especially so if the revolution was to succeed. Those who joined the movement early would be the ones with the best return.
Anyone feeling frustrated and impotent in the face of the current system can empower themselves by putting cash for everyday consumption under the mattress, and gold coins into a secret hiding place somewhere safe. There is no need to go into the streets to vent anger. There is no need for violence of any kind. What the political elite fear more than anything is a quiet revolution where cash and gold simply vanishes from the system.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Voluntary Serfdom
Norway never had the feudal system of serfdom. However, it did have a system of voluntary servitude. This system, called husmann (literally house-man), was one in which a laborer would voluntary accept servitude against certain guarantees from the lord of the manor. The only distinguishing feature of this contract as compared to serfdom was that the husmann was free to leave at any time. The deal was sweet enough for the lord of the manor to be confident that there would always be others willing to accept it.
The husmann got a small house to live in, a small garden to tend for his own, and a vague promise of care and help in old age and in case of medical emergency. In return, the lord was free to call upon his services at any time. He would typically have to work the land of the lord during the busy months of spring and fall, with little time to tend his garden. However, since he was free to leave, the husmann was never pushed too far. He was taxed to his limit, but rarely so much that he would revolt.
This system was very successful and popular with the gentry and the laborers alike. It was the dominant system of inland Norway, away from the coast where a completely different system existed.
Coastal towns employed a system of paid labor, with every man taking care of his own. The advantage of this system was that it allowed for more opportunity. A clever young man could work his way up from store clerk to store owner, from deck hand to captain, from rags to riches. The down side was the risk. Failure to succeed could result in abject poverty,. Such people would be completely reliant on charity for their survival.
The two systems existed in parallel for hundreds of years. The result of this was that there emerged two distinct cultures; an inland culture and a coastal culture. The inland culture was conservative and rigid. The coastal culture was liberal and dynamic.
When democracy was introduced to Norway, the inland culture won over the coastal culture. When free to choose, laborers chose guarantees over freedom. Politicians acted like benevolent lords, making promises way beyond what manor lords would dare to make. The politicians were super-heroes, constantly adding to the list of goodies they would guarantee.
At first, the manor lords were appalled. However, they quickly realized that they had in fact won the cultural battle between coast and inland. They became politicians themselves. The husmann system that had been threatened by the success and dynamism of coastal towns had been rescued.
The dynamic culture of coastal Norway started to deteriorate, and there is little left of it today. Just about everybody is a husmann, and those who aren't husmann are lords of the manor, i.e. politicians.
However, there is a problem. While the old lords refused to promise more than they could offer, politicians have gone way beyond what can reasonably be expected. This has been naively accepted by the husmann inclined majority in the population, and any discussion concerning the sustainability of the current system is quickly silenced.
The result is that we have today in Norway a system that is widely popular, yet completely unsustainable. Reality is starting to rear its ugly head. Conditions in old people care homes are becoming increasingly desperate. Health care is rationed. The honest lord of the manor has been replaced by the dishonest politician. The dynamic coastal culture has been greatly reduced. Where there used to be a natural balance between conservative reverence for the lord and liberal risk taking, there is today a wasteland of young adults with no higher ambition than to be taken care of by the good lord, the politician and his unsustainable system.
Norwegian social democracy is a dead man walking. Unsustainable to the extreme, it is bound to crash in the not too distant future. Those who naively and blindly cling to their belief in the benevolent and all seeing lord of the manor, the politician, will discover the truth the hard way.
The husmann got a small house to live in, a small garden to tend for his own, and a vague promise of care and help in old age and in case of medical emergency. In return, the lord was free to call upon his services at any time. He would typically have to work the land of the lord during the busy months of spring and fall, with little time to tend his garden. However, since he was free to leave, the husmann was never pushed too far. He was taxed to his limit, but rarely so much that he would revolt.
This system was very successful and popular with the gentry and the laborers alike. It was the dominant system of inland Norway, away from the coast where a completely different system existed.
Coastal towns employed a system of paid labor, with every man taking care of his own. The advantage of this system was that it allowed for more opportunity. A clever young man could work his way up from store clerk to store owner, from deck hand to captain, from rags to riches. The down side was the risk. Failure to succeed could result in abject poverty,. Such people would be completely reliant on charity for their survival.
The two systems existed in parallel for hundreds of years. The result of this was that there emerged two distinct cultures; an inland culture and a coastal culture. The inland culture was conservative and rigid. The coastal culture was liberal and dynamic.
When democracy was introduced to Norway, the inland culture won over the coastal culture. When free to choose, laborers chose guarantees over freedom. Politicians acted like benevolent lords, making promises way beyond what manor lords would dare to make. The politicians were super-heroes, constantly adding to the list of goodies they would guarantee.
At first, the manor lords were appalled. However, they quickly realized that they had in fact won the cultural battle between coast and inland. They became politicians themselves. The husmann system that had been threatened by the success and dynamism of coastal towns had been rescued.
The dynamic culture of coastal Norway started to deteriorate, and there is little left of it today. Just about everybody is a husmann, and those who aren't husmann are lords of the manor, i.e. politicians.
However, there is a problem. While the old lords refused to promise more than they could offer, politicians have gone way beyond what can reasonably be expected. This has been naively accepted by the husmann inclined majority in the population, and any discussion concerning the sustainability of the current system is quickly silenced.
The result is that we have today in Norway a system that is widely popular, yet completely unsustainable. Reality is starting to rear its ugly head. Conditions in old people care homes are becoming increasingly desperate. Health care is rationed. The honest lord of the manor has been replaced by the dishonest politician. The dynamic coastal culture has been greatly reduced. Where there used to be a natural balance between conservative reverence for the lord and liberal risk taking, there is today a wasteland of young adults with no higher ambition than to be taken care of by the good lord, the politician and his unsustainable system.
Norwegian social democracy is a dead man walking. Unsustainable to the extreme, it is bound to crash in the not too distant future. Those who naively and blindly cling to their belief in the benevolent and all seeing lord of the manor, the politician, will discover the truth the hard way.
 |
| A cottage for the husmann |
By Valtov at fi:wikipedia - Originally from fi:wikipedia, Public Domain, Link
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
A Guaranteed Nurse
It used to be every family to their own when it came to old people care. When people grew older they would either have one of their children take care of them, or they would pay out of their savings to have someone else's child take care of them. Those who failed to have children or save money for their old age were left exposed, depending on charity for survival.
All this changed with the introduction of the welfare state. All of a sudden, everyone would get taken care of, guaranteed by the state. In return for somewhat higher taxes, everyone was now entitled to a nurse when such a need would arise. It was a great deal. A little higher taxes was a small price to pay for such a guarantee.
Free from worries about the practicalities of old age, people could focus on more immediate needs and wants. People could enjoy themselves and develop interests more freely for longer. As a result, fewer chose to have more than three children, and most postponed family expansion until their mid thirties. There were other more pressing matters, fun and interesting things to do. Besides, the extra taxes paid for the future nurse put a limit on how many children a couple could afford to have.
An increasing number of people spent their money in the now, assuming that the extra taxes were savings enough. Many had no children at all, expecting the future nurse to materialize when needed. However, the number of available nurses is turning out to be far less than initially expected, and the money paid in as taxes has been spent on other political projects. There are neither enough nurses nor enough money to pay for them.
Going forward, the services provided by public old people's care can only deteriorate. There simply aren't enough resources available. The promise of a free nurse was an illusion, a political promise that could not be met for the simple economic reasons outlined above. Nurses do not materialize out of nowhere simply because some politician has mandated it. Those who have neither children nor savings are heading for a dark and uncertain future.
All this changed with the introduction of the welfare state. All of a sudden, everyone would get taken care of, guaranteed by the state. In return for somewhat higher taxes, everyone was now entitled to a nurse when such a need would arise. It was a great deal. A little higher taxes was a small price to pay for such a guarantee.
Free from worries about the practicalities of old age, people could focus on more immediate needs and wants. People could enjoy themselves and develop interests more freely for longer. As a result, fewer chose to have more than three children, and most postponed family expansion until their mid thirties. There were other more pressing matters, fun and interesting things to do. Besides, the extra taxes paid for the future nurse put a limit on how many children a couple could afford to have.
An increasing number of people spent their money in the now, assuming that the extra taxes were savings enough. Many had no children at all, expecting the future nurse to materialize when needed. However, the number of available nurses is turning out to be far less than initially expected, and the money paid in as taxes has been spent on other political projects. There are neither enough nurses nor enough money to pay for them.
Going forward, the services provided by public old people's care can only deteriorate. There simply aren't enough resources available. The promise of a free nurse was an illusion, a political promise that could not be met for the simple economic reasons outlined above. Nurses do not materialize out of nowhere simply because some politician has mandated it. Those who have neither children nor savings are heading for a dark and uncertain future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)