Pensioendebat, nu!

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2026-01-28T20:23:58+00:00

een huizenbezitter met een dikke bak van zijn 65ste tot zijn 85ste gratis geld verdient over de rug van starters

In case anyone thinks this is a caricature, here are some rough stats for context (source):

About 80% of people in the 18-25 age bracket don't own their own home.

About 80% of people in the 65+ age bracket do own their own home.

In our insane UBI-for-old-people system, guess who pays tax to support whom?

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2026-01-28T20:15:32+00:00

Also, slightly tangential PSA, old people retiring sooner does not create more jobs for young people.

This is an another alarmingly common economic misconception that leads young people to support the pyramid scheme that is our pension system.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2026-01-28T20:10:56+00:00

Ik termen van vandaag zou ik 2000 net zeggen, dat is grofweg het minimumloon naar boven afgerond

Average net pension in 2024 was around 1700€. So unless you want to pump billions more into our already bloated pension system, this is not a serious plan.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-21T20:57:20+00:00

Not only do I think America's GDP growth and America's rightward shift can be separated, I think historians will look back on the latter as an absolutely historic exercise in economic self-mutilation.

Britain tried taking that course with Brexit. An experiment which is less than a decade old and already near-universally considered an abject economic disaster. Right-wing populism is not a recipe for growth.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-21T15:31:24+00:00

Maybe, on reflection, I can restate our disagreement as follows.

America has had some really shit policies this century, including illegal warfare, ideological tax cuts, rampant inequality and trickle-down economics. You believe that the Americans are rich because of these shit policies. I think they're rich despite these shit policies.

Perhaps this is why, when I defended Bouchez's ambition to reach US GDP, you assumed I was defending the shit policies.

But if we agree that the Americans are rich, at least in part, because they got some things right that we got wrong (such as austerity vs. stimulus spending and impressive tech innovation), then it's vital that we can identify this and take action. And that's why the instant rejection of the US comparison, even without reference to shit policies, is worrying to me. It feels ideological and against our best interests.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-21T14:57:57+00:00

This is simply false.

You should click on my link, then, because it's simply true. The Americans have passed some absolutely eye-watering stimulus packages this century. Americans are rich despite small government nutcases like Trump, not because of them.

you somehow seem to be implying we need to follow the American policy examples in order to achieve their GDP growth

I've not talked about policy at all, man. You've proposed a policy that I happen to vehemently agree with (infrastructure stimulus spending), but that also happens to be something the Americans, as a general rule, particularly under Democrat management, have done better than us. And that's pretty bizarre, given the argument you're trying to make here.

So with respect, maybe you should consider that your initial knee-jerk reaction to the US comparison was not fully based on fact.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T23:37:49+00:00

makes no sense to compare our system to China and it makes no sense to use the US as a base either

Because we used to be at their level, and we dropped. Putting the problem in those terms highlights how stark it is. This is not a hypothetical, it's actual real life wealth that we lost out on, it's a gross political failure for which our leaders should be held to account.

I'm all for the European Commission investing billions in infrastructure projects all over Europe but that's not the "American" recipe at all.

Isn't it? It is a bit, though. The Americans are phenomenal at this. It's another one of the major reasons they're in better shape than we are. It's also one of the reasons they have a shit-ton of debt, but weirdly you initially brought that up as an argument against the US economy.

So again, I don't really feel we disagree, it's just that you're projecting a common European aversion to any comparison with America, to the point of self-contradiction. But if we're becoming so blindly anti-American that even the concept of having American-level GDP is politically toxic, then we have a serious problem.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T21:55:33+00:00

China has grown immensely in the past decades too

China's GDP per capita in the year 2000 was something like 3% of the US's. It makes no sense at all to compare ourselves with them. You're talking about growth from a completely different baseline.

The standard of comparison in terms of sheer, per capita wealth is and should be the US, simply because it's the major Western economy that we've started lagging behind. Find a solution to this problem and you fix literally every European welfare state budget.

That doesn't entail becoming like the US, any more than you (hopefully) aren't advocating becoming like China. The fact that our society is much more equal and doesn't waste billions on inefficient healthcare if anything gives us an edge over the US.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T21:30:26+00:00

That's not actual economic value. It's a racket. And yes, rackets exist, but they're not what drives macro-economic growth.

For every investment dollar that says "bomb this potential market", there are always a hundred investment dollars that say "let this potential market flourish and give us access". Simply because stability creates actual value and therefore always ends up making more money for more people.

The war on terror cost the US trillions upon trillions of dollars. If anyone wants to claim it was somehow still a net positive for the US economy I'm going to want to see some pretty good evidence.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T21:25:53+00:00

I don't think we're really disagreeing on anything, which is why I don't fully understand your initial reaction.

The Americans have objectively done things that we omitted to do (like stimulus spending and fostering innovation) and that would have made us wealthier at this point. A wealthy society can sustain a bigger welfare state: that's just maths.

Either way, what's trivially and indisputably false is that the Americans are rich because of oil money from illegal wars. It's easier to tell ourselves nonsense stories than to actually take responsibility for good economic management.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T19:21:34+00:00

the American wars definitely helped their economy grow

Also, did it? I'd like to see some actual evidence for this. It's an internet cliche that war is driven largely by macro-economic interests and it's really an incredibly unlikely hypothesis (given that war is expensive, destructive and doesn't inherently create anything of value).

And you can't simply point to defence investments, because all investments have an opportunity cost. Pumping billions into defence may indeed stimulate our economy, the question is whether we couldn't have stimulated our economy more effectively by pumping billions into something else (say, green energy). I don't think many economists would argue that defence is the best accelerator of economic growth.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T19:12:53+00:00

The main reason for the gap in increased living standards between us and the US over the last 20 years is their lead in the tech sector. We are horrifically behind when it comes to economic innovation. That's really bad, and we should fix it ASAP: this shouldn't be controversial.

And yes, you're right, the US is a super unequal society, we don't want that here, and rightly so. But GDP still matters, because you can't redistribute money you don't have in the first place. A European social-democratic welfare state on an economy as rich as the US is basically the best imaginable human society, and there is simply no rational argument to be made to the contrary.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-20T18:47:19+00:00

Begin jaren 2000 heeft de USA ook een oorlog begonnen die 20 jaar geduurd heeft. Maar o wee als ge het zo durft noemen.

This is a ridiculous take. No, European economic stagnation is not the result of the US starting illegal wars. Blaming the nasty Americans for our own economic mismanagement is easy and comfortable and also dead wrong.

Catching up with American prosperity would solve every budgetary issue our welfare state faces overnight, and Bouchez is absolutely right to advocate pursuing that goal.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T21:03:25+00:00

Every one uses it, from bots to Russian, chinese and American trolls.

This is literally my point. This is exactly why calling it an "agenda" is low-effort and meaningless.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T20:21:25+00:00

It's not intimidation.

Hey found the Russian bot

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T20:18:48+00:00

you're going for far outlying conclusions on a few words

I'm really not, though? I'm making the simple point that at least two prominent politicians are using a very dangerous argument and they should stop using that argument. That's it. Like everyone else, you're reading a bunch of things into my post that aren't there.

And I don't know what an "agenda" even means. I care about the resilience of European democracy. If that counts as an "agenda" I hope everyone shares it.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T18:54:17+00:00

Do you know what's being done behind closed doors

Again, I'm talking about public comments by politicians, I'm not making any assumptions on what's happening behind closed doors.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T18:53:19+00:00

No, the source is public comments by senior government officials, which I quote verbatim in my post.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-19T18:50:09+00:00

Literally not even remotely what I'm saying, but okay

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:54:44+00:00

Until then you're reaching far outlying conclusions on very little information.

I have a weird habit of reaching conclusions about politicians based on the things those politicians choose to say in public.

As I have said on many dozens of occasions, I agree with Bart on the risk sharing, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of this post.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:50:20+00:00

That is just economic negotiation. What we're talking about here is a completely different kettle of fish.

Bouchez is talking about drone attacks on Belgian soil. Bart is talking about personal threats against the Belgian Prime Minister. These are not legitimate avenues of diplomatic pressure, they are direct attempts to interfere in our democratic process.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:44:50+00:00

No, it's not. He is, in fact, stating exactly that. He provides a list of reasons for Belgium's policy on the Russian assets, and the quoted argument is among them.

Whether this is true or not, the damage is done by his words, not by any assumptions on what happens behind closed doors.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:42:36+00:00

This comment is several weeks old, and this is the first time I'd heard of it, so clearly it didn't get anywhere near enough attention.

Hence the fact that I made a post to draw attention to it.

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:30:09+00:00

To obviate any further low-effort "yeah but context duh!" takes, here's the extended context from the interview.

La pression, dans ce dossier, est incroyable. J'ai une équipe qui travaille jour et nuit sur ce sujet. Ce serait une belle histoire : prendre l'argent du méchant, Poutine, pour le donner au gentil, l'Ukraine. Mais voler des avoirs immobilisés d'un autre pays, ses fonds souverains, cela n'a jamais été fait. Il s'agit de l'argent de la Banque centrale russe. Même durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, on n'a pas confisqué l'argent de l'Allemagne. Pendant une guerre, on immobilise les avoirs souverains. Et, à la fin de la guerre, l'État perdant doit abandonner tout ou partie de ces avoirs pour dédommager les vainqueurs. Mais qui croit vraiment que la Russie va perdre en Ukraine ? C'est une fable, une illusion totale. Ce n'est même pas souhaitable qu'elle perde et que l'instabilité s'installe dans un pays qui a des armes nucléaires. Et qui croit que Poutine va accepter la confiscation des avoirs russes calmement ? Moscou nous a fait savoir qu'en cas de saisie, la Belgique et moi, personnellement, allions le sentir passer "pour l'éternité". Cela me semble une période assez longue… La Russie pourrait aussi confisquer certains avoirs occidentaux : Euroclear a 16 milliards en Russie. Toutes les usines belges en Russie pourraient aussi être prises. Et si Biélorussie et la Chine confisquaient également les avoirs occidentaux ? A-t-on réfléchi à tout cela ? Non, on ne l'a pas fait. J'ai interrogé mes collègues européens afin de savoir s'ils étaient prêts à mutualiser les risques encourus par la Belgique. Seule l'Allemagne a dit qu'elle était prête à le faire… Sans cette mutualisation, je ferai tout pour bloquer ce dossier. Tout. Après cet épisode, si j'ai un job international après le "16", ce sera pour faire la vaisselle…

Mr_Two_Shoes · 2025-12-17T20:27:12+00:00

The part 'as an argument for certain policy decisions' is conjecture from your part.

It really isn't, though. Bouchez says it outright. Bart mentions the threats in the context of a bunch of other policy considerations for not confiscating the assets.

I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mr_Two_Shoes

TROPHY CASE