Those regulations are choices. You can make different choices. You can make them tomorrow.

I'm sorry but i cannot take seriously any problem that essentially boils down to "We want it to be like this".

There are 9 billion people in the world, roughly half of them are perfectly capable of doing manual labor.

There is plenty of skilled labor, and the cost is frankly not that high, you just need to let them work.

Can we be serious here? There is one and only one cause of "high housing prices" and that is a political choice to make housing expensive.

Don't tell people what they can or can't do with their property.

Don't prevent people from being brought in to build stuff.

Do these 2 things and housing will be built if the price is truly high. Anything else is bullshit.

That's not how the economy works... Nothing gets "sucked out of the economy", and certainly not a productive investment that generated that income.

Interesting on how the very example you give for "oh this job isn't really bullshit" ultimately ends up being useless for the business itself, and exists only as a result of regulation.

No, health insurance being provided by employers, or tax withholding aren't useful things for anyone, except for the state who now offloads its costs onto private businesses.

But you can?

It's called paying nurses more to encourage greater supply...

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what the current situation is.

There is no "gains in an investment account" because social security is unfunded, and has only vestigial investments (many of which are primarily fig leaf to finance the government at lower costs/lower returns).

There won't be any "gains in an investment account that will be competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because there fundamentally aren't any gains.

Now, assuming that your misconception was correct, and that there was a pot of unrealized gains to be consumed when you retire... That still wouldn't cause any "competing for a rapidly shrinking working age population" because the thing about having resources is that you can spend them to get more of the things you need. Sure a large influx of capital requiring some specific goods or services would increase the price of those things... which would in turn increase the incentive to provide more of those things.

Frankly that isn't an issue if it's fully funded.

> large amounts of voters who don’t have investments but have a vote to vote for someone who will increase taxes to increase benefits.

And this is the problem.

Theft and its normalization through political power is what causes the self-funded and fully funded model to fail, not anything inherent to it.

>Pensions are no more a Ponzi scheme than a capital market predicated on growth that will not occur due to structural global demographic dynamics.

There is nothing to capital markets that requires growth. Indeed historically it is the opposite, and investors tend to overpay for growth resulting in lower returns.

Effectively no different from a regular ponzi scheme being used to purchase votes.

Self-investment has the actual investment there.

If pensions were fully-funded you'd be right, but they aren't in almost every country. Unfunded pension liabilities are well over 300% of GDP in most european countries, but since they don't show up on debt to gdp metrics, people aren't aware of it.

>The investment dollars in scope are similar, with pensions being better managed than your average human would do.

Also that is untrue.

It's an obvious propaganda post intended to demonize the financial markets, and promote unsustainable social security policies.

This is a result of subsidies distorting market prices and encouraging malinvestment.

Yes, that involves treating it like pyramid schemes are treated.

That means:

- Arresting those involved in making them - Reclaiming all funds paid out - Refunding all funds paid in

Anything else isn't treating it like the pyramid scheme it is.

Stop justifying pyramid schemes.

Social protection - 400 b

personal social services - 54b

health - 294b

Education - 145b

industry agriculture and employment - 51b

housing and environment - 51 billion

That accounts for roughly 70% of public sector spending, not 33%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2025-docum...

They weren't paying "into the system". They were being taxed.

Treat it for what it was, and stop feeding the pyramid scheme.

The answer is welfare. That is the original sin of all of this, and the one people refuse to acknowledge.

You need to let people fail.

Copyright is evil. Disliking LLMs doesn't change that.