Danes Rethink A Welfare State Ample to a Fault

[Baluarte]

It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.

It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym ''Carina'' in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country's full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.

In past years, Danes might have shrugged off the case, finding Carina more pitiable than anything else. But even before her story was in the headlines 16 months ago, they were deeply engaged in a debate about whether their beloved welfare state, perhaps Europe's most generous, had become too rich, undermining the country's work ethic. Carina helped tip the scales.

With little fuss or political protest—or notice abroad—Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.

But Denmark's long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.

Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all—be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.

''Before the crisis there was a sense that there was always going to be more and more,'' Bjarke Moller, the editor in chief of publications for Mandag Morgen, a research group in Copenhagen. ''But that is not true anymore. There are a lot of pressures on us right now. We need to be an agile society to survive.''

The Danish model of government is close to a religion here, and it has produced a population that regularly claims to be among the happiest in the world. Even the country's conservative politicians are not suggesting getting rid of it.

Denmark has among the highest marginal income-tax rates in the world, with the top bracket of 56.5 percent kicking in on incomes of more than about $80,000. But in exchange, the Danes get a cradle-to-grave safety net that includes free health care, a free university education and hefty payouts to even the richest citizens.

Parents in all income brackets, for instance, get quarterly checks from the government to help defray child-care costs. The elderly get free maid service if they need it, even if they are wealthy.

But few experts here believe that Denmark can long afford the current perks. So Denmark is retooling itself, tinkering with corporate tax rates, considering new public sector investments and, for the long term, trying to wean more people—the young and the old—off government benefits.

''In the past, people never asked for help unless they needed it,'' said Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, who has been outspoken on the subject. ''My grandmother was offered a pension and she was offended. She did not need it.

''But now people do not have that mentality. They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded. And it has brought us a good quality of life. But now we need to go back to the rights and the duties. We all have to contribute.''

In 2012, a little over 2.6 million people between the ages of 15 and 64 were working in Denmark, 47 percent of the total population and 73 percent of the 15- to 64-year-olds.

While only about 65 percent of working age adults are employed in the United States, comparisons are misleading, since many Danes work short hours and all enjoy perks like long vacations and lengthy paid maternity leaves, not to speak of a de facto minimum wage approaching $20 an hour. Danes would rank much lower in terms of hours worked per year.

In addition, the work force has far more older people to support. About 18 percent of Denmark's population is over 65, compared with 13 percent in the United States.

One study, by the municipal policy research group Kora, recently found that only 3 of Denmark's 98 municipalities will have a majority of residents working in 2013. This is a significant reduction from 2009, when 59 municipalities could boast that a majority of residents had jobs. (Everyone, including children, was counted in the comparison.)

Joachim B. Olsen, the skeptical politician from the Liberal Alliance party who visited Carina 16 months ago in her pleasant Copenhagen apartment, is particularly alarmed. He says Sweden, which is already considered generous, has far fewer citizens living on government benefits. If Denmark followed Sweden's example, it would have about 250,000 fewer people living on benefits of various sorts.

''The welfare state here has spiraled out of control,'' Mr. Olsen said. ''It has done a lot of good, but we have been unwilling to talk about the negative side. For a very long time it has been taboo to talk about the Carinas.''

Already the government has reduced various early-retirement plans. The unemployed used to be able to collect benefits for up to four years. Now it is two.

Students are next up for cutbacks, most intended to get them in the work force faster. Currently, students are entitled to six years of stipends, about $990 a month, to complete a five-year degree which, of course, is free. Many of them take even longer to finish, taking breaks to travel and for internships before and during their studies.

In trying to reduce the welfare rolls, the government is concentrating on making sure that people like Carina do not exist in the future. It is proposing cuts to welfare grants for those under 30 and stricter reviews to make sure that such recipients are steered into jobs or educational programs before they get comfortable on government benefits.

Officials have also begun to question the large number of people who are receiving lifetime disability checks. About 240,000 people—roughly 9 percent of the potential work force—have lifetime disability status; about 33,500 of them are under 40. The government has proposed ending that status for those under 40, unless they have a mental or physical condition that is so severe that it keeps them from working.

Instead of offering disability, the government intends to assign individuals to ''rehabilitation teams'' to come up with one- to five-year plans that could include counseling, social-skills training and education as well as a state-subsidized job, at least in the beginning. The idea is to have them working at least part time, or studying.

It remains possible that the cost-cutting push will hurt the left-wing coalition that leads the government. By and large, though, the changes have passed easily in Parliament and been happily endorsed by conservatives like Mr. Olsen, who does his best to keep his meeting with Carina in the headlines.

Carina was not the only welfare recipient to fuel the sense that Denmark's system has somehow gotten out of kilter. Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.

Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment.

Unlike Carina, who will no longer give interviews, Mr. Nielsen, called ''Lazy Robert'' by the news media, seems to be enjoying the attention. He says that he is greeted warmly on the street all the time. ''Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,'' he said.

Some Danes say the existence of people like Carina and Mr. Nielsen comes as no surprise. Lene Malmberg, who lives in Odsherred and works part time as a secretary despite a serious brain injury that has affected her short-term memory, said the Carina story was not news to her. At one point, she said, before her accident when she worked full time, her sister was receiving benefits and getting more money than she was.

''The system is wrong somehow, I agree,'' she said. ''I wanted to work. But she was a little bit: 'Why work?' ''

[The Lawspeaker]

Ah.. I see that the liberal (European liberalism is right-wing), capitalist propaganda is in full swing again.

[Baluarte]

I think it has more to do with the current economic hardships rather than a whole political mindset change.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think it has more to do with the current economic hardships rather than a whole political mindset change.
And who caused the current economic hardships ? Exactly.. capitalism did. And the right is just trying to cure heroine addiction by administering heroine. Saving capitalism by making it even more hard-line.

[Baluarte]

I have never been truly interested in the politics of the Nordic countries.
Is there any hard eurosceptic movement?

[mr. logan]

And who caused the current economic hardships ? Exactly.. capitalism did. And the right is just trying to cure heroine addiction by administering heroine. Saving capitalism by making it even more hard-line.

Not really. Socialism did. Capitalism doesn´t do bailouts. Banks would crash away.

[The Lawspeaker]

Not really. Socialism did. Capitalism doesn´t do bailouts. Banks would crash away.
Ooh look another New Worlder that thinks that he knows how socialism works. :picard1: Did you know that Europe didn't have socialism.. since forever ? And that we only had a social market economy (only in some countries) and that the big banks have their buddies up in parliament that they paid to hand them over large sums of money ?

Did you know that socialism is the collective ownership of the production facilities and banks of a nation ? Name one European country where that is, at present, the case.


Let me tell you something new: not a single country in Europe has been build up by private initiative. Why ? Because private initiative only takes money and property from those that already made something and then markets it at a profit. And European countries (all of them) went through a period called the Reconstruction (roughly between 1945 and 1965) and this was done by the State handing over taxpayer money to entrepreneurs to build factories and officers. The entire infrastructure was build by the State because private initiative had always (also before the war) been unable to do anything right. And even that wasn't socialism: it was a Keynesian approach to capitalism (look it up): it was done to kick-start the economy.

[mr. logan]

So you understand the system really is soft fascism nowadays, which is modern socialism.

[The Lawspeaker]

So you understand the system really is soft fascism nowadays, which is modern socialism.
You don't seem to be able to tell an A and from an arse.

What's the difference between socialism and fascism ? Night is very different from the day.

Socialism= collective ownership over the means of production.

Fascism= cooperate take-over over government. Industry remains in private hands yet the government only does their bidding.

With all due respect, mr. logan: you are talking out of your ass.

[mr. logan]

different speeds, dude.

[The Lawspeaker]

different speeds, dude.
Let's be frank: you're ignorant.

[Hess]

It's encouraging to the Danes attempt to reign in the perverse, ill-shaped monster known as the Welfare State, but it's not nearly enough; more steps need to be taken to create an atmosphere that rewards entrepreneurship rather than punishing it with suffocating regulations and ultra progressive taxation.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's encouraging to the Danes attempt to reign in the perverse, ill-shaped monster known as the Welfare State, but it's not nearly enough; more steps need to be taken to create an atmosphere that rewards entrepreneurship rather than punishing it with suffocating regulations and progressive taxation.
Ah.. in America crapitalism has been so successful. NO.

What European countries need is a return to the days of the Folkhemmet. A return to an idea that a national is a family and a good home for it's people. I understand that you left your country and you, probably, feel more ties with the career you're chasing than your own people. I understand that. But the Western and Northern European philosophy is different from the American rude selfishness that is known simply as "libertarianism".

Breadlines and the idea of people dying of illnesses because they can't afford treatment does not belong in a civilised society.

[Baluarte]

Please, like Protestants haven't sold themselves to money...

[Mary]

It's not Capitalism or Socialism. It's generation. The Boomers built the welfare state and benefited from it, now that they are getting old they are going to dismantle it.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's not Capitalism or Socialism. It's generation. The Boomers built the welfare state and benefited from it, now that they are getting old they are going to dismantle it.
The Boomers didn't built the welfare state. It was built during the 1930s to early 1960s by their parents (a.k.a The Greatest Generation). The Boomers profited from it and now they are going to dismantle it before anyone else can. The Boomers were a perfidious generation that first lived off their parents, then off the state (and thus, in a way, still off their parents,free tuition, collecting welfare and then nicking the good jobs - taking those away from their own children) and later off their children and now grandchildren.

[Mary]

The Boomers didn't built the welfare state. It was built during the 1930s to early 1960s by their parents (a.k.a The Greatest Generation). The Boomers profited from it and now they are going to dismantle it before anyone can. The Boomers were a perfidious generation that first lived off their parents, then off the state (free tuition, collecting welfare and then nicking the good jobs) and now off their children and grandchildren.

I mean built in the sense that they expanded it as much as possible for their own benefit, not that they did the actual work of building up the wealth.

[The Lawspeaker]

I mean built in the sense that they expanded it as much as possible for their own benefit, not that they did the actual work of building up the wealth.
Yes, that's correct. The actual work and legislation was done by the generation of their parents (and in some countries even grandparents). But they did the profiting - without contributing in any way, shape or form by taking those jobs that allowed them to manipulate the system and making sure that they didn't need to contribute (tax evasion).

[Hess]

Ah.. in America crapitalism has been so successful. NO.

What European countries need is a return to the days of the Folkhemmet. A return to an idea that a national is a family and a good home for it's people.I understand that you left your country and you, probably, feel more ties with the career you're chasing than your own people. I understand that. But the Western and Northern European philosophy is different from the American rude selfishness that is known simply as "libertarianism".

Breadlines and the idea of people dying of illnesses because they can't afford treatment does not belong in a civilised society.

We have always disagreed sharply on Economic issues; oh well :shrug:

But I was a Liberal before I moved to America. Let's not forget that Liberalism was founded in Europe, not America.

Among its fathers are Jean Baptise-Say, David Hume, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Pieter De La Court (Dutchman) and many others; all Europeans.

[The Lawspeaker]

We have always disagreed sharply on Economic issues; oh well :shrug:

But I was a Liberal before I moved to America. Let's not forget that Liberalism was founded in Europea, not America.

Among its fathers are Jean Baptise-Say, David Hume, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Pieter De La Court (Dutchman) and many others; all Europeans.
Most of them dating back to 17th and 18th century. Things have changed. Most, if not all, of them were people that never left their desk and never saw the abject misery of those around them. And if anything: they were raised with a complete disregard for those of "lower financial standing" then they and their rich families (that always profited off the labour of others) were.

They were people of the elite writing for people of the elite.. looking for some kind of a pseudo-philosophical system that would perpetuate their financial well-being, their status and their shocking selfishness and callousness.

[Hess]

Most of them dating back to 17th and 18th century. Things have changed. Most, if not all, of them were people that never left their desk and never saw the abject misery of those around them. And if anything: they were raised with a complete disregard for those of "lower financial standing" then they and their rich families (that always profited off the labour of others) were.

They were people of the elite writing for people of the elite.. looking for some kind of a pseudo-philosophical system that would perpetuate their shocking selfishness and callousness.


Historically, Liberalism was a reaction against the very kind of poverty you are talking about; poverty caused by too much Government intrusion into the Economy.

How did these people profit off the labour of others? They were intellectuals; professors like many Socialists. What about the fact that most famous European Socialists are also from Rich, Elite families? What about the fact that Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and many other Liberals were great philanthropists, donating much of their income to various charities?

Frankly, I think you hate Capitalism too much to be objective about it.

[The Lawspeaker]

Historically, Liberalism was a reaction against the very kind of poverty you are talking about; poverty caused by too much Government intrusion into the Economy.
What government intrusion ? The merchants were the government in this country. :picard1:


How did these people profit off the labour of others? They were intellectuals; professors like many Socialists. What about the fact that most famous European Socialists are also from Rich, Elite families? What about the fact that Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and many other Liberals were great philanthropists, donating much of their income to various charities?
Only very rich people could study in those days. They didn't get their money from hard work.


Frankly, I think you hate Capitalism too much to be objective about it.
With good reason. The only way out of this present mess is to dump capitalism once and for all.

[Graham]

I don't see a source? Giving yourself room to adapt as a small nation, is good.. The article compares an ageing Population only the USA for some reason. Can't imagine being higher than the rest of Europe.


Balurte stop with the Protestant Catholic stuff. It's tiresome and obsessive.

[Hess]

The merchants were the government in this country

What you are describing is Corporatism, not Capitalism.
The Mercantilism of the 16th and 17th centuries had nothing to do with Liberalism or Capitalism.


They didn't get their money from hard work.

Whether their work is hard or not is your opinion. Did they steal their money or get subsidies from the Government? Not as far as I know.

[The Lawspeaker]

What you are describing is Corporatism, not Capitalism.
The Mercantilism of the 16th and 17th centuries had nothing to do with Liberalism or Capitalism.
Different name, same shit.




Whether their work is hard or not is your opinion. Did they steal their money or get subsidies from the Government? Not as far as I know.
They did in most cases by means of receiving handouts straigt out of the coffin as their rich families held control over the government and in those days power over the government was automatically used to give yourself more money at the public's expense.

[mr. logan]

:thumb001:
just proves the point.

[The Lawspeaker]

What should be done in Europe is very simple: all businesses that have been privatised should be taken back by the state because not a single privatisation has been successful (meaning better services for the public). Not even one. All regulations that were dumped in order to aid employers and bankers ridding themselves of democratic control and social responsibility should be reimposed. Those breaking the laws should see their businesses confiscated on the spot and themselves prosecuted under law with the most severe punishments being mandatory right away. Their companies will then be sold on to the highest bidder.

Education, welfare payments and healthcare should all be returned to the hands of the state - and thus put under democratic control.

[The Lawspeaker]

:thumb001:
just proves the point.
You didn't have a point.

[MarkyMark]

What government intrusion ? The merchants were the government in this country. :picard1:


Only very rich people could study in those days. They didn't get their money from hard work.


With good reason. The only way out of this present mess is to dump capitalism once and for all.

It was the Capitalist hand that fed western europe in the Marshall Plan where America gave a huge amount of money to rebuild your countries. I wouldn't disrespect the hand that feeds you. Also you must acknowledge that a lot of people here don't like socialism because I don't want to pay for some lazy ghetto person(probably a black) to sit on their ass and smoke weed all day long.

[The Lawspeaker]

It was the Capitalist hand that fed western europe in the Marshall Plan where America gave a huge amount of money to rebuild your countries. I wouldn't disrespect the hand that feeds you. Also you must acknowledge that a lot of people here don't like socialism because I don't want to pay for some lazy ghetto person(probably a black) to sit on their ass and smoke weed all day long.
America can do what it wants but we should follow American ideas in any way, shape or form. Particular since America has long since dumped it's own ideals and has become the exact opposite of what it once stood for. And the Marshall plan ? Was a plan of binding us to America and turning us into perpetual slaves. It was money straight from the National Reserve and thus out of thin air while America nicked our gold in return.

[Graham]

I think only businesses that lack competition, and drive up costs should be in the Public Sector. Like the Trains, water, gas & electricity. Only one problem with that, is the Unions. Who in themselves pay rich rewards to their bosses in a corrupt matter & can hold a nation to ransom..

Always a silver lining.

Most Welfare should be localised. So one council can suit it's needs, without effecting another.. For example in London, it costs more to live. So should be set, at a higher rate, so none else is spoiled rotten. In Scotland, we should have benefits lower than in london.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think only businesses that lack competition, and drive up costs should privatised. Like the Trains, water, gas & electricity. Only one problem with that, is the Unions. Who in themselves pay rich rewards to their bosses in a corrupt matter & can hold a nation to ransom..

1. The Dutch Railways was privatised. The result is a daily mess. Prices went up, maintenance and services went down. There is no competition
2. Water has not been privatised. Thank God.
3. Electricity was privatised. Prices have quadrupled. Companies set the prices illegally and are being protected by their political friends.
Healthcare was privatised. Services went down, prices went up.

Name a single - ONE successful privatisation. Just one.




Most Welfare should be localised. So one council can suit it's needs, without effecting another.. For example in London, it costs more to live. So should be set, at a higher rate, so none else is spoiled rotten. In Scotland, we should benefits lower than in london.
I agree.

[Graham]

I meant in the Public Sector lol. I wrote it, the other way round. :P

Semi-illiterate.

[MarkyMark]

America can do what it wants but we should follow American ideas in any way, shape or form. Particular since America has long since dumped it's own ideals and has become the exact opposite of what it once stood for. And the Marshall plan ? Was a plan of binding us to America and turning us into perpetual slaves. It was money straight from the National Reserve and thus out of thin air while America nicked our gold in return.

I'm not surprised I didn't learn this in American textbooks. Do you have a source?

[The Lawspeaker]

I'm not surprised I didn't learn this in American textbooks. Do you have a source?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/16/why-germany-wants-its-674-tons-of-gold-back/

Germany wants it's gold back.

The Dutch minister of finance (who has himself high friends in the U.S, Brussels and the banks) does not find it necessary to take our gold back (against the wishes of the people):
http://www.nu.nl/economie/3010831/nederlands-goud-niet-teruggehaald.html

[Vasconcelos]

I think only businesses that lack competition, and drive up costs should be privatised. Like the Trains, water, gas & electricity.

Theoretically the point of "liberalizing" a market is to improve competitiveness and promote a decrease in prices.

In services like those you mentioned, you need a large and singular infrastructure/network. It's huge scale and high costs mean that it cannot be replicated by other companies, and thus should be unique. The consequence is that it ends up making little sense to privatize, because there is always only going to be one company responsible for that particular service.

Why, then, should it belong to private hands, rather than the Government? Even when/if it does get privatized, it requires serious regulation and price control because private companies will always try to squeeze as much juice out of you as possible, regardless of how critical something is for your basic survival, like water.



EDIT: I just noticed your correction, sorry about that :)

[Graham]

I made an error in writing Private instead of Public. Your statement is valid & true. :)

[RussiaPrussia]

The welfare state of Europe is the greatest archievment accomplished which makes this continent different. People should finally realize that instead try to destroy it.
The main reason why its falling apart is because people make too less children, instead giving all these benefits for older people they should have given it to younger people who made 2 or 3 childrens. Politicians in the west are also very retarded they constlay increase taxes or take more debt to finance welfare. They should rather stop selling off their assets like energy and other state companies who were massively privatized in the last years.

[Hess]

Different name, same shit.

Absolutely not. Adam Smith, the father of Liberalism, hated Mercantilism with a passion.




They did in most cases by means of receiving handouts straigt out of the coffin as their rich families held control over the government and in those days power over the government was automatically used to give yourself more money at the public's expense.

I condemn that, but as far as I know neither the thinkers of the scottish enlightenment nor the famous French liberals (Bastiat, Say) did things like that

[The Lawspeaker]

Absolutely not. Adam Smith, the father of Liberalism, hated Mercantilism with a passion.





I condemn that, but as far as I know neither the thinkers of the scottish enlightenment nor the famous French liberals (Bastiat, Say) did things like that
By just replacing it by something just as corrupt and inherently the same. No thank you. Europe should stay the way it is meaning: a mixed economy, and an excellent welfare state that ensures liberty and justice for all rather then for an extremely small wealthy upper class like in the United States.


The welfare state of Europe is the greatest archievment accomplished which makes this continent different. People should finally realize that instead try to destroy it.
The main reason why its falling apart is because people make too less children, instead giving all these benefits for older people they should have given it to younger people who made 2 or 3 childrens. Politicians in the west are also very retarded they constlay increase taxes or take more debt to finance welfare. They should rather stop selling off their assets like energy and other state companies who were massively privatized in the last years.
You should look up the population density of Western Europa and then talk again. We need less children not more. Hell.. in this country (and maybe even in Belgium and Britain) we could use a one child policy.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Population_density_Europe.png



If anything: families with large families should lose their benefits. Why ? Because they put pressure on society and exhaust our natural and financial resources.

[Vasconcelos]

You should look up the population density of Western Europa and then talk again. We need less children not more. Hell.. in this country (and maybe even in Belgium and Britain) we could use a one child policy.

I understand your point of view, but on the other hand it gets complicated for a small amount of working age people to sustain a large amount of retired people as we have now, it creates a lot of stress due to the required taxes. It's a tricky issue..

[The Lawspeaker]

I understand your point of view, but on the other hand it gets complicated for a small amount of working age people to sustain a large amount of retired people as we have now, it creates a lot of stress due to the required taxes. It's a tricky issue..
We can do with the Japanese do: automatisation and mechanisation where needed. And we have Eindhoven University so we can try to beat them on robotics. No, I think that the Dutch population should just start a slow decline. Back to 10 million with a couple of decades and then 8.5, 9 million.

[alfieb]

And who caused the current economic hardships ? Exactly.. capitalism did. And the right is just trying to cure heroine addiction by administering heroine. Saving capitalism by making it even more hard-line.

Nonsense.

Countries with extremely high entitlement spending, spending that was out of control and increased their debt to beyond a reasonable limit is hardly the same as free market capitalism. Cyprus has had communist government recently. Greece had socialists in power. Spain also had socialists in power.

The only way out of the current mess in Europe and North America is to decrease social spending, and state spending entirely.

You don't need to be an economics major to realize that if you spend more money than you take in, it's going to have disastrous consequences.

[The Lawspeaker]

Nonsense.

Countries with extremely high entitlement spending, spending that was out of control and increased their debt to beyond a reasonable limit is hardly the same as free market capitalism. Cyprus has had communist government recently. Greece had socialists in power. Spain also had socialists in power.

The only way out of the current mess in Europe and North America is to decrease social spending, and state spending entirely.

You don't need to be an economics major to realize that if you spend more money than you take in, it's going to have disastrous consequences.


It's funny because it's untrue. F.I: the crisis did not begin in Finland, Norway or Sweden with it's extensive welfare states. It began in America: the first country to dismantle safety nets and to give the banks free reign. Try again.

[alfieb]

It's funny because it's untrue. F.I: the crisis did not begin in Finland, Norway or Sweden with it's extensive welfare states. It began in America: the first country to dismantle safety networks and to give the banks free reign. Try again.
Free reign? You know nothing about this country.

It began because poor people defaulted on their loan payments on their mortgages. These mortgages were forced upon the banks by the central government who felt that it was too difficult for poor minorities with no-credit and bad-credit to own their own homes, and that too many of them lived in apartments that they rented. It was left-wing social engineering, and it backfired.

Banks were, by law, required to loan money to people who they knew couldn't afford to pay it back, who purchased homes that were well out of their economic means... and when it came back to haunt them, the government blamed the free market, when it was their own doing.

While the Scandinavian countries are famous for their high taxes and large safety nets, the Germanic states are actually considered to be more free-market than Italy (http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap) and the rest of Southern Europe. They absolutely have their disgusting problems, like just how many of their citizens work for the state, and the absurdly high top income tax level, but to insinuate that the fact that Norway (with their immense oil wealth and their wise decision to remain out of the EU) hasn't collapsed, is an indictment on free market capitalism is absurd.

[The Lawspeaker]

Free reign? You know nothing about this country.

It began because poor people defaulted on their loan payments on their mortgages. These mortgages were forced upon the banks by the central government who felt that it was too difficult for poor minorities to own their own homes, and that too many of them lived in apartments that they rented. It was left-wing social engineering, and it backfired.

Banks were, by law, required to loan money to people who they knew couldn't afford to pay it back, who purchased homes that were well out of their economic means... and when it came back to haunt them, the government blamed the free market, when it was their own doing.

While the Scandinavian countries are famous for their high taxes and large safety nets, the Germanic states are actually considered to be more free-market than Italy (http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap) and the rest of Southern Europe. They absolutely have their disgusting problems, like just how many of their citizens work for the state, and the absurdly high top income tax level, but to insinuate that the fact that Norway (with their immense oil wealth) hasn't collapsed, is an indictment on free market capitalism is absurd.
It's always easy to blame the government but the banks bought politicians to change that law for them. And the only reason why bankers are not being arrested and put on trial is because they are not legally responsible but the functioning of the corporation. A legal trick they also made sure of. And because of all this I believe that the separation between the legal entity that is a corporation (which prevents prosecution) and the people running it should be dismantled and banks themselves should be nationalised and then handed over to their customers as cooperative banks.

Capitalism hasn't worked and will never work.

[alfieb]

Hong Kong has the freest markets in the world and is one of the strongest economies in the world. Their GDP per capita is stronger than your own country's (and mine).

I will disregard your conspiratorial talk of laws that were hostile to the banks being written by the banks, because I don't trade in that hypothetical bullshit.

Switzerland will never collapse. Their economy (like Hong Kong's) is ferocious. I wish more countries were like them.

[The Lawspeaker]

Hong Kong has the freest markets in the world and is one of the strongest economies in the world. Their GDP per capita is stronger than your own country's (and mine).

I will disregard your conspiratorial talk of laws that were hostile to the banks being written by the banks, because I don't trade in that hypothetical bullshit.
Of course not. Because it isn't conspiracy talk but the cold, hard truth. It's funny that our free media (freer than in America where all media are just held by six companies) has already talked about it quite extensively. Hong Kong ? That's one of those "countries" that if you take the banks away it's all over. Hong Kong is also not really capitalist since there is no difference between private and state: the bankers and company directors literary own the government and the central bank and living circumstances for the poor are extremely impoverished but that's something most libertards.. sorry Paulbots.. err libertarians wouldn't care about because they have no actual life experience.

So looking at this country what did capitalism do for us ? Did it build roads ? Nope paid for by taxation.
Did it build railways ? Nope.. paid for by taxation.
Did it build society housing ? Very few social housing has been built since the cooperatives have been privatised.
Did it build canals ? Nope.. paid for by taxation.
Did it build factories ? Well yes after the government paid for the infrastructure and quickly moved them abroad when the wages were cheaper somewhere else where people could be exploited without mercy.
Did it build a social welfare state ? No it didn't. It even hired the church to fight tooth and nail against it.
Did it build the ports of Rotterdam ? Nope.. paid for by taxation.
Sure it built the Flevopolders ? Ach no.. paid for by taxation


So what did capitalism do to build up this country ? The backbone of what we have here is what we call the MKB (middle and smallholders) like family businesses. Not the big companies that don't pay any taxes (tax rate in this country for multinationals and foreign companies is less than 3 procent. We are a virtual tax haven. We are a country that taxes it's poor to death and gives the money away for free to big corporations). But you didn't know that, did you ?

So if you would have been an actual European you would have known about who built Europe. It's not capitalism.

[Graham]

When RBS went down, it was more to do with the bank taking on too many assets, & the buyout of the dodgy Dutch Bank ABN Amro for £49 billion. That ultimately sunk the ship.

[Neon Knight]

If wealth was distributed fairly to begin with, there would be no great need for re-distribution. I am in favour of workers' cooperatives for all medium and large companies where the employees own at least 51% of the shares. Then these companies will stay at home and not go to slave labour places like India.

I also think most European countries desperately need a 'one child' policy combined with very low immigration. Apparently in the 70s there was a saying: "Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause without population control."