When will the welfare run out?

[Crusader1986]

Hey everyone. So we all know the welfare state is unsustainable.  The question is can we predict when exactly the money will run out? I know it's impossible to say exactly when as in which day of which month but is there anyone who can pinpoint roughly when it'll happen?  I know that this year the UK spent 25 billion pounds on housing benefit and 264 billion overall on welfare. This can't continue for ever. Does anyone know what's the maximum amount of money that can be spent on welfare before the whole thing comes crashing down? Like hard statistical data which proves beyond which point no one can overspend without everything burning? Or the maximum amount of debt a country can get into before hyperinflation kicks off?

 

Also I went to the Royal Mint a few days ago which is the place in UK where they make all the coin currency. I saw all the coins being produced and they were literally just pouring out of the machines.  Every week £90 million worth of coins are produced which adds up to 4.6 billion a year. And that's just the coins. They said they were mass producing these coins due to many "disappearing" all the time due to people collecting or money mysteriously disappearing. Bullshit. They're mass producing due to the country being bankrupt and they need to produce more currency to pay off the debt. And this will only result in inflation, maybe hyperinflation in the future. This is unsustainable. You should have seen all those coins pouring out of the machines. Those coins are totally worthless and people don't even realise that this whole thing is going to result in economic disaster.

[smarterthanone]

Impossible to answer question. The reason being the same reason why we cannot introduce laws and things to change economics the way we want. Nobody can predict human behavior on such a mass scale. Economics is related to psychology in that way, just like a doctor can't say some specific thing or give you a specific medicine to cure your bipolar disorder, they can take good guesses but that's really it. When it comes to economics its like that but times 325 million or however big the US population is right now.

[Boss]

I believe the "welfare" state will run out when the separation of money and state occurs. 

Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies have the best chance at it. However, Bitcoin core(BTC) is not usable as money right now due to high transaction fees and slow confirmations. As far as an exact date, I am not sure. I would be surprised if it didn't happen in my lifetime tho. 

[Spladam]

Just now, smarterthanone said:

Nobody can predict human behavior on such a mass scale

Quite right, however we could at least try to create an estimation based upon mathematics. There is of course the problem of knowing when it is that people will be no longer motivated to make money due to its lack of worth. Also, who does the UK owe their debt to? another country? No, a bank from Germany (you know the one). There's a great presentation animation on YouTube which explains this issue pretty well. Actually there are a few. Check out this:

 

So, when will welfare run out? Who knows the exact date, but the event will be something along the lines of the Banks wanting their money back. The people will pay for it through interest rates and taxes. The government will pay for it by limiting spending and increasing the taxes. 

[ofd]

Quote

Or the maximum amount of debt a country can get into before hyperinflation kicks off?

Won't happen in the UK. Look at Japan with their lost decade to see where you are headed. Two entities create fiat money, banks and Central banks. The amount that the Central bank puts out is negligible compared to giral money creatian via private debts.

[M.2]

The welfare state is in fact sustainable. (Mathemathically speaking, but also in reality.) When Mr.Molyneux talks about the welfare state, he is talking about it in context of certain attitudes, particularly those of Canada, US, France, Germany etc. Such attitudes are basically the globalist ones that we all know and love. If you are asking about these countries, my answer is that as soon as bitcoin is adopted, they will fail.

The welfare state will probably never fail in the following western countries, supposing their current policies will be followed: Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, maybe San Marino.

Luxembourg, for example, I like to call them the hypocrites of Europe. They are the biggest open-doors advocates, but only take in hardworking, catholic Portuguese immigrants. They advocate for the assistance of the poor, but they are generous only to those who hold Luxembourgish citizenship, which is very hard to obtain. They advocate for raising taxes in the EU, yet they have literally zero corporate tax rate.

[RichardY]

Might end up with a change in governmental system, instead of a crash and burn of the welfare state. Become Balkanised like Yugoslavia & Serbia. The in group prefernce thing. Although can't see how Sweden could sustain it's current system, without mass deportations. Ultimately demographics would give you your answer, except, they've stopped taking census data. End up balkanised like Yugoslavia & Serbia. However that was preceeded by a currency crisis, although more of an end game, as the various ethnic groups were hostile to one another, probably the muslims against the rest.

[Laforge]

Great question. Theres indeed a lot of "stock market type" uncertainty involved, making predictions close to impossible. But there is also the factor of mass psychology, which *may* be better to predict. The question it comes down to: How much pressure can a govt put on their people before they go mental and switch to revolution-mode to the point of suicidal?

Scary version: look at the population of both Venezuela and North Korea for a glimpse into our own future. They still seem to swallow their gov's sh!t.

Optimist version: support alternative media and/or speak to help separate govt from economy. Shift the people's perspective on the importance/relevance of govt. That way govt may never run out of money but get forced to restructure into a free-market type of minarchist security company, responsive to the customer's needs.

Also, a related fun read: http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-straight-best-friends-marry-11739904

Basically two straight men married to avoid the insane gift-taxes we suffer under in this late Roman empire. I love it when the govt has less money for their evil or inefficient goals. What I like most is that those guys are so honest about it.

Merry -no homo man love- Christmas <3

 

[Crusader1986]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The welfare state is in fact sustainable. (Mathemathically speaking, but also in reality.) When Mr.Molyneux talks about the welfare state, he is talking about it in context of certain attitudes, particularly those of Canada, US, France, Germany etc. Such attitudes are basically the globalist ones that we all know and love. If you are asking about these countries, my answer is that as soon as bitcoin is adopted, they will fail.

The welfare state will probably never fail in the following western countries, supposing their current policies will be followed: Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, maybe San Marino.

Luxembourg, for example, I like to call them the hypocrites of Europe. They are the biggest open-doors advocates, but only take in hardworking, catholic Portuguese immigrants. They advocate for the assistance of the poor, but they are generous only to those who hold Luxembourgish citizenship, which is very hard to obtain. They advocate for raising taxes in the EU, yet they have literally zero corporate tax rate.

Yes, but we all know the european governments will never stop with their open doors, diversity/multiculturalism policy, unless the right wing takes power, so as things stand now, and if trends continue it WILL collapse. The welfare state and system as we know it now is completely unsustainable. White fertility rates are 1 or 1.5 children per couple. the Muslims have about 3 or 4 per couple. This means that in the end they will outbreed us and constitute the majority of the population. Then if you look at the facts that 62% of muslims are on benefits you're going to have the majority of the biggest group in the population (muslims) being on welfare. Which will mean more government spending resulting in more debt resulting in more money having to be printed off to pay off the debt which will result in hyperinflation, you know where this leads...There's no way that a small minority of whites can support 30 or 40 million muslims on welfare. So that in itself means that it's inevitable that the welfare state will collapse eventually. I predict it'll be when muslims make between 15-20% of the population. There'll be just too many muslims consuming too many resources.

You may say governments will be forced to cut spending. But cutting spending on welfare for muslims? That will never happen. They're too cowardly and worried about how hostile the muslims will get if they do that that they'll instead either cut welfare for whites or increase taxation on whites. Remember what Stefan said: If you have the choice to pay off the mafia or the non threatening people who will you choose? You appease the mafia of course simply because they're more threatening.

[Crusader1986]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The welfare state is in fact sustainable. (Mathemathically speaking, but also in reality.) When Mr.Molyneux talks about the welfare state, he is talking about it in context of certain attitudes, particularly those of Canada, US, France, Germany etc. Such attitudes are basically the globalist ones that we all know and love. If you are asking about these countries, my answer is that as soon as bitcoin is adopted, they will fail.

The welfare state will probably never fail in the following western countries, supposing their current policies will be followed: Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, maybe San Marino.

Luxembourg, for example, I like to call them the hypocrites of Europe. They are the biggest open-doors advocates, but only take in hardworking, catholic Portuguese immigrants. They advocate for the assistance of the poor, but they are generous only to those who hold Luxembourgish citizenship, which is very hard to obtain. They advocate for raising taxes in the EU, yet they have literally zero corporate tax rate.

And this guy disagrees with your proposition that the Norwegian welfare state will never fail. 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Crusader1986 said:

Yes, but we all know the european governments will never stop with their open doors, diversity/multiculturalism policy, unless the right wing takes power, so as things stand now, and if trends continue it WILL collapse. The welfare state and system as we know it now is completely unsustainable. White fertility rates are 1 or 1.5 children per couple. the Muslims have about 3 or 4 per couple. This means that in the end they will outbreed us and constitute the majority of the population. Then if you look at the facts that 62% of muslims are on benefits you're going to have the majority of the biggest group in the population (muslims) being on welfare. Which will mean more government spending resulting in more debt resulting in more money having to be printed off to pay off the debt which will result in hyperinflation, you know where this leads...There's no way that a small minority of whites can support 30 or 40 million muslims on welfare. So that in itself means that it's inevitable that the welfare state will collapse eventually. I predict it'll be when muslims make between 15-20% of the population. There'll be just too many muslims consuming too many resources.

You may say governments will be forced to cut spending. But cutting spending on welfare for muslims? That will never happen. They're too cowardly and worried about how hostile the muslims will get if they do that that they'll instead either cut welfare for whites or increase taxation on whites. Remember what Stefan said: If you have the choice to pay off the mafia or the non threatening people who will you choose? You appease the mafia of course simply because they're more threatening.

I suspect there will be wars before this becomes a problem. At worst we're seeing a South African level civil war across the various European countries but with odds significantly in favor of the natives rather than the foreigners. At best I think the Muslims will take care of themselves (i.e. they'll make White people hate them so much and be so hostile that enough angry young whites of either my generation or the next will forcibly evict the lot of them). 

However I am certain Europe is staring down a new Dark Age either way. They'll bounce back (eventually) but my tentative prediction is that within the century Europe will become a vastly different continent going forward by looking backwards. 

Excluding Russia, Poland (though highly atheistic and liberal from what I've recently learned--they're also highly nationalist and will therefore have a stable liberal paradise rather than an unstable one), Hungary, and perhaps other Eastern European countries which were vaccinated by the Soviet Union from Communism and will therefore most likely be experiencing a Roman-style Golden Age over the Western/Central/Northern Europeans.

Therefore I strongly recommend (especially before they stop taking immigrants) learning Russian (or Polish or etc.) and moving eastward since it'll be those countries that'll become the future Romans rather than the setting sun of the West. 

[ProRational]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The welfare state is in fact sustainable. (Mathemathically speaking, but also in reality.) When Mr.Molyneux talks about the welfare state, he is talking about it in context of certain attitudes, particularly those of Canada, US, France, Germany etc. Such attitudes are basically the globalist ones that we all know and love. If you are asking about these countries, my answer is that as soon as bitcoin is adopted, they will fail.

The welfare state will probably never fail in the following western countries, supposing their current policies will be followed: Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, maybe San Marino.

Luxembourg, for example, I like to call them the hypocrites of Europe. They are the biggest open-doors advocates, but only take in hardworking, catholic Portuguese immigrants. They advocate for the assistance of the poor, but they are generous only to those who hold Luxembourgish citizenship, which is very hard to obtain. They advocate for raising taxes in the EU, yet they have literally zero corporate tax rate.

I agree mishi all in favor of Rhode Island, or how about New Jersey succession and the U.S. or how about the cut off entitlements (for military industries) in those socialist NATO countries all in favor say Aye. Mathematically speaking the U.S. has carried such countries in NATO for them to grow entitled to our military support. Because population wise, the U.S. has about  324 million as opposed to the countries you have listed which have roughly 15.4 million 15.5 if you were to count san marino (whose military industry is practically non-existent outside of U.S. and EU help). So I like these millennial ideas stemming from years of falsehood that a utopia is achievable. So if those countries knew they could exist with out being a parasite to bigger countries they would have been more successful historically speaking instead of maintaining neutrality or state governments rolling on their belly every time they are faced with a chance to fight. In which case the UK saved Norway's butt (by providing paramilitary support to max manus and others including the commandos that sabotaged the heavy water plant in Oslo until the Allied front could move close enough for a German withdrawal from the area) as well as support for former Czechoslovakia when their government decided to role over (Operation Anthropoid).   

[M.2]

7 hours ago, Crusader1986 said:

Yes, but we all know the european governments will never stop with their open doors, diversity/multiculturalism policy, unless the right wing takes power, so as things stand now, and if trends continue it WILL collapse. 

You may say governments will be forced to cut spending. But cutting spending on welfare for muslims? That will never happen. They're too cowardly and worried about how hostile the muslims will get if they do that that they'll instead either cut welfare for whites or increase taxation on whites. 

You missed my entire point. There are european governments that are not in favour of opendoors. I don't disagree with you, I'm simply pointing out that there are notable exceptions to the unstable welfare state that characterises some western countries. I may even go as far to say that the current issue that Mr.Molyneux is referring to affects only a minority of the western population. The eastern countries have been dismantling the welfare state aince the fall of communism; that is half of the west right there in terms of population.

There already are examples of massive welfare state deconstruction. Such are Japan, Hungary, Russia, Poland etc. There is a sizeable muslim population in Russia. If it is possible for them, it may yet be possible for the west, though doubtful, I agree.

4 hours ago, ProRational said:

1. Mathematically speaking the U.S. has carried such countries in NATO for them to grow entitled to our military support. Because population wise, the U.S. has about  324 million as opposed to the countries you have listed which have roughly 15.4 million 15.5 if you were to count san marino (whose military industry is practically non-existent outside of U.S. and EU help).

2. So I like these millennial ideas stemming from years of falsehood that a utopia is achievable. So if those countries knew they could exist with out being a parasite to bigger countries they would have been more successful historically speaking instead of maintaining neutrality or state governments rolling on their belly every time they are faced with a chance to fight.

3. In which case the UK saved Norway's butt (by providing paramilitary support to max manus and others including the commandos that sabotaged the heavy water plant in Oslo until the Allied front could move close enough for a German withdrawal from the area) as well as support for former Czechoslovakia when their government decided to role over (Operation Anthropoid).   

You make a few fair points, but I can debate over all of them.

1. First... isn't it true that nato has been obsolete for over 20 years now? Russia is having a tough time subduing ISIS, let alone what would happen if they go up against the fully mechanised and armed to the teeth Gebirgsjäger of Switzerland. (I am aware that the swiss are officially not part of nato, in case anyone tries to inform me). I am even more sceptical about Russia beating France one on one. About San Marino... don't you worry about them; they have been doing fine since 300AD.

2.  What do you mean "more successful"? Successful like whom?

3. It is mere propaganda that poor Norway was suffering so severely under Nazi occupation. The Norse were regarded as pure Aryans, so they had all the privileges, and none of the drawbacks of the Third Empire. Same goes for France in fact more or less. I would link you the gdp stats for ww2 era Norway, but I respect your intelligence and trust that you will find the data yourself. Czechia was fine as well - one can't build 95% of all Tigers with a bad attitude. As for Slovakia, they were allied with Germany. ...You westerners and your messiah complex... ridiculous. You morons were supporting communist insurrectionists. Familiar?

Edit: Sorry for being mean. But seriously, can't you just sit one out and stay on your damned hemisphere for once?

Edited December 23, 2017 by Mishi2

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. It is mere propaganda that poor Norway was suffering so severely under Nazi occupation. The Norse were regarded as pure Aryans, so they had all the privileges, and none of the drawbacks of the Third Empire. Same goes for France in fact more or less. I would link you the gdp stats for ww2 era Norway, but I respect your intelligence and trust that you will find the data yourself. Czechia was fine as well - one can't build 95% of all Tigers with a bad attitude. As for Slovakia, they were allied with Germany. ...You westerners and your messiah complex... ridiculous. You morons were supporting communist insurrectionists. Familiar?

Burrrrrrn.

 

The government can't run out of money to support the welfare state. On the federal level, the government can create infinite money to pay for things. As long as there is a reserve population that actually produces enough to keep up with welfare demand, it can go forever. I think the tipping point comes when either regulations (like the West) or totalitarianism (like Venezuela) inhibit the productive population from actually producing something; then those parasites who devour us perish in their uttermost famine.

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎23‎. at 4:42 PM, Crusader1986 said:

And this guy disagrees with your proposition that the Norwegian welfare state will never fail. 

Could you please extract the argument? I would love to learn, but I'm stuck in the middle of the Ardennes without wifi for the moment. Do you have anything to say about the other countries?
Edit: At first I only saw the public debt of Norway, which is around 30%, extremely low compared to other western countries, but I then found the external debt, which is around 130%... that is really high. So I retract my claim on Norway. However, their policies on imigration and economic independence from the EU are still very agreeable.

The time has not come yet, but if the Roman Empire is any indication, the east will survive the west by a millenium, and only Rome will be able to revive the west.

What I can guarantee is that the eastern countries are very welcoming of western refugees, so if that is what you decide to place your bet on, go for it.

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎24‎. at 4:42 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

The government can't run out of money to support the welfare state. On the federal level, the government can create infinite money to pay for things. As long as there is a reserve population that actually produces enough to keep up with welfare demand, it can go forever. I think the tipping point comes when either regulations (like the West) or totalitarianism (like Venezuela) inhibit the productive population from actually producing something; then those parasites who devour us perish in their uttermost famine.

If bitcoin is adobted by the general population, the collapse will come sooner, but it may also be more forgiving.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Mishi2

[Jsbrads]

Once printed currency value drops below the cost of its paper, it can no longer “create” value.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If bitcoin is adobted by the general population, the collapse will come sooner, but it may also be more forgiving.

What collapse? Governments create their own demand of their currency via taxation, and thus create the currency's value. If bitcoin does achieve something akin to currency status (which it very well could, as I discussed with Nima), it would make things a lot easier for a lot of people around the world trying to live with their governments making idiotic and often anti-life decisions for them. However, even if BTC is used as a currency, governments will still demand taxes in the currencies they create, which still give value to those created currencies.

[M.2]

On 12/24/2017 at 7:15 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

What collapse? Governments create their own demand of their currency via taxation, and thus create the currency's value. If bitcoin does achieve something akin to currency status (which it very well could, as I discussed with Nima), it would make things a lot easier for a lot of people around the world trying to live with their governments making idiotic and often anti-life decisions for them. However, even if BTC is used as a currency, governments will still demand taxes in the currencies they create, which still give value to those created currencies.

Well, I'm sure you are aware of the examples of Cyprus and Argentina, so I won't bore you. But I think the best example is Venezuela, where so many people have switched to crypto, that the government had to create a cryptocurrency of their own. Sure, it's not bitcoin, but it is a trend. The same trend is going in all other countries, because inflation and regulation are a problem everywhere, but only in slow motion. Basically, the government is not the only one who has an influence on the population, but the population has a great influence on the govenment as well. Besides, there is massive value for the government if they switch to crypto, despite the fact that they will lose control over the currency. So I think it is only a matter of time before they see it. Supposing it is a sane government like that of Switzerland (crypto haven), the transition will come very soon.

This, in my opinion will make it truly mathemathically impossible for welfare to continue. Even the debt industry will be impossible to sustain for obvious reasons.

[ProRational]

On 12/23/2017 at 12:55 PM, Mishi2 said:

You missed my entire point. There are european governments that are not in favour of opendoors. I don't disagree with you, I'm simply pointing out that there are notable exceptions to the unstable welfare state that characterises some western countries. I may even go as far to say that the current issue that Mr.Molyneux is referring to affects only a minority of the western population. The eastern countries have been dismantling the welfare state aince the fall of communism; that is half of the west right there in terms of population.

There already are examples of massive welfare state deconstruction. Such are Japan, Hungary, Russia, Poland etc. There is a sizeable muslim population in Russia. If it is possible for them, it may yet be possible for the west, though doubtful, I agree.

You make a few fair points, but I can debate over all of them.

1. First... isn't it true that nato has been obsolete for over 20 years now? Russia is having a tough time subduing ISIS, let alone what would happen if they go up against the fully mechanised and armed to the teeth Gebirgsjäger of Switzerland. (I am aware that the swiss are officially not part of nato, in case anyone tries to inform me). I am even more sceptical about Russia beating France one on one. About San Marino... don't you worry about them; they have been doing fine since 300AD.

2.  What do you mean "more successful"? Successful like whom?

3. It is mere propaganda that poor Norway was suffering so severely under Nazi occupation. The Norse were regarded as pure Aryans, so they had all the privileges, and none of the drawbacks of the Third Empire. Same goes for France in fact more or less. I would link you the gdp stats for ww2 era Norway, but I respect your intelligence and trust that you will find the data yourself. Czechia was fine as well - one can't build 95% of all Tigers with a bad attitude. As for Slovakia, they were allied with Germany. ...You westerners and your messiah complex... ridiculous. You morons were supporting communist insurrectionists. Familiar?

Edit: Sorry for being mean. But seriously, can't you just sit one out and stay on your damned hemisphere for once?

And Mishi I didn't miss your point, even in France the Legionaries understand the value of contribution. In a retirement community they understand two things primarily, the value of keeping busy as well as contributing.

But also the socialist state only eliminates the necessity of new inventions.

1. Nato may not be obsolete but the reliance on a welfare union (EU) as well as U.S. for Nato funding, welfare must end in any case, it is a direct threat to any free market.

2. More successful, while immigrants can serve a roll for their country (to return like Max Manus did to fight the Nazi powers) the countries fore-fitted their right to exist by rolling over to appease the occupiers. If Czechoslovakia fought the Nazis they would possibly have gained support earlier instead of relying on a insurgency to help oust the Nazi occupiers.  

3. Not all the Norse as you say bought the pure Aryan society goal. Many were angry to see the fascists take over in the universities, the press, and any decent educational benefits from a place open to all intellectual studies, not to mention the take over of various jobs by the higher echelons of Nazi party society. Also I didn't use the word poor. Which insurrection's are these you speak of? The Che involvement in the May 6th movement where naiive journalists bolstered support against Baptista, or the Hindsight 20/20 revelations of who we supported in the Soviet/Afghan war in which the professional's failed to asses the capabilities of Ahmad Shah Massoud, and supported several who were or later decided to become open communists?   

 

If you'd like a Hemisphere, the most beneficial to the western hemisphere was the United States of America under a free market where the automobile, airplane, electricity, electronic personal computers, microprocessors, you name it the U.S created such inventions under a minimally regulated market. The greatest inventions of the 19th century were created by the U.S. the assembly line (Fords free books on Zionist conspiracies to keep Muhammadan workers aside) created a nation capable to help defeat three axis's of evil.

Also Mishi nothing mean was said, it was just words. I appreciate the etiquette you used.

[ProRational]

On 12/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

What collapse? Governments create their own demand of their currency via taxation, and thus create the currency's value. If bitcoin does achieve something akin to currency status (which it very well could, as I discussed with Nima), it would make things a lot easier for a lot of people around the world trying to live with their governments making idiotic and often anti-life decisions for them. However, even if BTC is used as a currency, governments will still demand taxes in the currencies they create, which still give value to those created currencies.

No offense Dylan, but if Bit currency has shown one thing, it is a decent artificially inflated ponzi scheme. It may serve well at value increases as well as cross sea transactions, but when it drops suddenly that means due to it's vulnerability the coins got tapped. If you would like to repeat the end of the roaring twenties be my guest, if you are lucky in time all the better for you.

[Crusader1986]

On 12/23/2017 at 4:52 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I suspect there will be wars before this becomes a problem. At worst we're seeing a South African level civil war across the various European countries but with odds significantly in favor of the natives rather than the foreigners. At best I think the Muslims will take care of themselves (i.e. they'll make White people hate them so much and be so hostile that enough angry young whites of either my generation or the next will forcibly evict the lot of them). 

However I am certain Europe is staring down a new Dark Age either way. They'll bounce back (eventually) but my tentative prediction is that within the century Europe will become a vastly different continent going forward by looking backwards. 

Excluding Russia, Poland (though highly atheistic and liberal from what I've recently learned--they're also highly nationalist and will therefore have a stable liberal paradise rather than an unstable one), Hungary, and perhaps other Eastern European countries which were vaccinated by the Soviet Union from Communism and will therefore most likely be experiencing a Roman-style Golden Age over the Western/Central/Northern Europeans.

Therefore I strongly recommend (especially before they stop taking immigrants) learning Russian (or Polish or etc.) and moving eastward since it'll be those countries that'll become the future Romans rather than the setting sun of the West. 

I used to think that we would win the civil war when it all kicks off due to our military, but yesterday I found this article which says that my country the UK is now trying to force diversity on the military. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-armed-forces-must-recruit-more-people-from-ethnic-minorities-says-defence-secretary-10508450.html 

It's fucking suicidal. Are they trying to make sure we lose the future civil war? Because of this diversity bullshit, in 20, 30 years when muslims have sufficient numbers, and it all kicks off, the army won't be enough to give us the edge. Instead it'll come to the average man on the street. Looking at my generation, they're all pussies. They'll crumble. I mean this thing will come down to being fought with knives, baseball bats and buckets of acid. It'll be a cakewalk for the muslims, they'll destroy us. And all thanks to the fact that we so stupid to not just impose diversity on the population but the military as well. We deserve to lose. I can't wait to see the liberal progressive fucktards and the look on their faces when they realise that not only have the muslims rejected multiculturalism but that they're killing us all and that we right wing nationalists were right along when we said that Islam/muslims are dangerous and that they want to take us over and destroy our culture. Fucking incompetents.

On 12/23/2017 at 7:55 PM, Mishi2 said:

You missed my entire point. There are european governments that are not in favour of opendoors. I don't disagree with you, I'm simply pointing out that there are notable exceptions to the unstable welfare state that characterises some western countries. I may even go as far to say that the current issue that Mr.Molyneux is referring to affects only a minority of the western population. The eastern countries have been dismantling the welfare state aince the fall of communism; that is half of the west right there in terms of population.

There already are examples of massive welfare state deconstruction. Such are Japan, Hungary, Russia, Poland etc. There is a sizeable muslim population in Russia. If it is possible for them, it may yet be possible for the west, though doubtful, I agree.

You make a few fair points, but I can debate over all of them.

1. First... isn't it true that nato has been obsolete for over 20 years now? Russia is having a tough time subduing ISIS, let alone what would happen if they go up against the fully mechanised and armed to the teeth Gebirgsjäger of Switzerland. (I am aware that the swiss are officially not part of nato, in case anyone tries to inform me). I am even more sceptical about Russia beating France one on one. About San Marino... don't you worry about them; they have been doing fine since 300AD.

2.  What do you mean "more successful"? Successful like whom?

3. It is mere propaganda that poor Norway was suffering so severely under Nazi occupation. The Norse were regarded as pure Aryans, so they had all the privileges, and none of the drawbacks of the Third Empire. Same goes for France in fact more or less. I would link you the gdp stats for ww2 era Norway, but I respect your intelligence and trust that you will find the data yourself. Czechia was fine as well - one can't build 95% of all Tigers with a bad attitude. As for Slovakia, they were allied with Germany. ...You westerners and your messiah complex... ridiculous. You morons were supporting communist insurrectionists. Familiar?

Edit: Sorry for being mean. But seriously, can't you just sit one out and stay on your damned hemisphere for once?

Good to hear the eastern europeans are dismantling the welfare state. Does that mean that they have less entitlements and benefits than there were 10 years ago?  If so, what benefits welfare entitlements do they have left? 

As for why the guy in the video thinks Norway welfare state will fail, most of norway's oil fund is in trillions of stocks and bonds and real estate, which will be wiped out  with hyperinflation that will happen soon. And judging by how much our governments are spending, it's not inconceivable that hyperinflation will happen eventually. In fact if you carry on printing more money it's inevitable that eventually you'll get inflation. However what should be asked is how come we haven't had a collapse of the welfare state yet in any of the european countries? For example in 2015 the UK's budget was 70 billion but we ended up spending 210 billion on welfare. That's 140 billion pounds worth of debt. It's a similar story every year. So why has there been no collapse yet? I know it just means the debt increases but at some point that money needs to be paid back...

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎31‎. at 9:24 AM, ProRational said:

1. Nato may not be obsolete but the reliance on a welfare union (EU) as well as U.S. for Nato funding, welfare must end in any case, it is a direct threat to any free market.

2. More successful, while immigrants can serve a roll for their country (to return like Max Manus did to fight the Nazi powers) the countries fore-fitted their right to exist by rolling over to appease the occupiers. If Czechoslovakia fought the Nazis they would possibly have gained support earlier instead of relying on a insurgency to help oust the Nazi occupiers.  

3. Not all the Norse as you say bought the pure Aryan society goal. Many were angry to see the fascists take over in the universities, the press, and any decent educational benefits from a place open to all intellectual studies, not to mention the take over of various jobs by the higher echelons of Nazi party society. Also I didn't use the word poor. Which insurrection's are these you speak of?
If you'd like a Hemisphere, the most beneficial to the western hemisphere was the United States of America under a free market where the automobile, airplane, electricity, electronic personal computers, microprocessors, you name it the U.S created such inventions under a minimally regulated market. The greatest inventions of the 19th century were created by the U.S. the assembly line (Fords free books on Zionist conspiracies to keep Muhammadan workers aside) created a nation capable to help defeat three axis's of evil.

1. In principle, I completely agree. Still, if there is evidence contrary to our knowledge, it must be addressed. Even if I'm completely wrong, and the welfare state is unsustainable under any and all circumstances, there is a reason why the free market has a tendency of creating welfare states, and that must be addressed, othrwise we are just running the hamster wheel.

2. Yugoslavia resisted, and they lost a fifth of their population. I can't be so quick to condemn little countries for "rolling over". I'm sure you would be the heroic partisan hiding out in the Belarussian forest, ambushing columns and whatnot, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation for any country with a population less than 50 million. To take the example of Czechslovakia, back in 1938-39, the Soviets were still using bows and arrows, the British were disarming, the French were being french, and the Americans were nowehere to be found. Why would the small countries of Europe even have tried to resist the "Nazis"; seems like suicide to me.

3. Such a dead giveaway of your intellectual marxism that you use the words "nazi" and "fascist". I understand it's meant to simplify the conversation, but it's also highly inaccurate and annoying, especially after the recent culture wars. So please don't do that. 
I never said that the Norse bought the ideology, but it doesn't even matter if they did, as they benefited regardless. "Poor'" was not supposed literal. GDP is the fist indication of liberty and progress. Had Norway been as oppressed as you claim, such growth would have been impossible. I may even link you the data if you quit giving me sentiments as arguments,

I'm talking about the highly overrated Czech resistance. 

I haven't got a single problem with the western hemisphere, except that some people can't seem to keep to themselves there. The IDEA of a virtuous nation, defender of truth and liberty, enforcing peace and justice around the globe... all that sounds awesome. My issue is that it doesn't seem to work too well, with the first obvious demonstration being WW1. Spreading the word of freedom via force is best left to the Europeans, as they have a record of doing it right.
I don't know what the three axis of evil is; I'm not a primitive american, so I don't use such language.

 

[lorry]

*Teleports behind you*

"Heh, Austrian economics doesn't waste its time with predictive models.  Nothing personal, kid".

 

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 12/27/2017 at 11:16 AM, Mishi2 said:

Well, I'm sure you are aware of the examples of Cyprus and Argentina, so I won't bore you. But I think the best example is Venezuela, where so many people have switched to crypto, that the government had to create a cryptocurrency of their own. Sure, it's not bitcoin, but it is a trend. The same trend is going in all other countries, because inflation and regulation are a problem everywhere, but only in slow motion. Basically, the government is not the only one who has an influence on the population, but the population has a great influence on the govenment as well. Besides, there is massive value for the government if they switch to crypto, despite the fact that they will lose control over the currency. So I think it is only a matter of time before they see it. Supposing it is a sane government like that of Switzerland (crypto haven), the transition will come very soon.

This, in my opinion will make it truly mathemathically impossible for welfare to continue. Even the debt industry will be impossible to sustain for obvious reasons.

I'm actually not aware enough of the situations in Cyprus and Argentina to usefully comment. However I will say this about Venezuela: it's socialist, and therefore by definition doesn't produce things. You can't compare it to more free state in the West. What I'm saying is, if a balance were discovered (I doubt it would be, especially by government), as long as the producers are producing more than welfare recipients are taking, then making sure the "welfare doesn't run out" is just an accounting problem.

On 12/31/2017 at 12:49 AM, ProRational said:

No offense Dylan, but if Bit currency has shown one thing, it is a decent artificially inflated ponzi scheme. It may serve well at value increases as well as cross sea transactions, but when it drops suddenly that means due to it's vulnerability the coins got tapped. If you would like to repeat the end of the roaring twenties be my guest, if you are lucky in time all the better for you.

Pon·zi scheme

noun

1. a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

Who are the first investors being paid with money from the later investors in the bitcoin ponzi scheme?