What is the largest ‘ white elephant ‘ in Dutch society? What goes wrong but nobody talks about it?

Radical Islam is all but a white elephant in the sense that since 2001 attention has been focused on radicalisation of Muslim young people.

However, the source of this evil is being killed, namely Arab Gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia.Organizations from these states finance salafistic mosques and radical preachers. In the Maldives, these preachers under the eyes of the government have already brainwashed a whole generation of young people (think about it before you book a holiday to that country), but it also happens in Western Europe.

But, openly pointing to Saudi Arabia is taboo because:

  • The country is a major oil supplier
  • The country is a major ally for NATO in the region
  • Everyone blames Iran (even Pim Fortuyn did so in his book ‘ The rubble of 8 years of Purple ‘) which is wrong because the radicalised youths are Sunni and Iran Shiite.

Not that the Iranian government is sweat, but Iran does not finance salafistic mosques and the Gulf states. Ancients of days.

I wanted to say something about the increasing politication of organisations and the subdulity of public organisations to party politics and perverse incentives in government and politics in general.But still for this chosen:

As you can see from the above populace, a sword of Damocles hangs over our heads: about 10 to 15 years, the majority of the Dutch population will consist of non-workers and non-productives.

These people must be fed, dressed and housed, but old age also comes with defects, and will therefore have to be taken care of.

In the state budget of 2017 saw that something like this:

These two biggest costs for the Dutch taxpayer are going to get even bigger.

Note: And I do not agree with the pension (not THE AOW), most of which only now find that this is a complex financial product with Associated risk profile .

For the first time in Dutch history, there is an intergenerational prosperity transfer from young to old.

Where for centuries a prosperity transfer from old to young took place, primarily through upbringing and yield, and secondly through inheritance, this is now reversed.

Of course there are demographic bases to be found (after-war baby boom, shrinking families), but they only reinforce this problem.

(While many elderly people see their home as an investment vehicle, many young people see the hope of owning a home before their eyes slip away.)

Of course, these figures are allowed to shoot in the well-known reflex and say: “but the elderly have worked for them all their life”.

But then we lose sight of the reality in which the economic value addition cannot be marketed against such sentiments. To say the same thing: A pensioner has, in his 50 year-old life, worked to add as much economic value as the current working youngster in the first 10 years of his career (economic productivity seems proportional to Moore’s law) . Otherwise inflation corrections would never be added (if you would rather have inflation corrections, you will automatically come out in the wonderful world of complex financial products or in the world between the pyramid game and the roulette table).

I recently wrote a reply about the stepping up of the second chamber member Zihni 脰zdil in which I defended the green Left method and explained why 脰zdil was indeed right.

One of my arguments exposes a more general reality: We have no certainty about what we are votingfor.

In the Netherlands, voting is mainly on the parties.Each party presents a party program. However, the points on this programme are not defended by each member.

An example of the case of 脰zdil: 脰zdil was at GroenLinks, a party that had the official position for the lending system.People vote for Green Links and they assume that they then elect parliamentarians who will vote for this lending system.

But verhip, there is 脰zdil.And what does he do? He is opposed to this system!Position of the party for which he is elected.

And before you start over preferred voices; 脰zdil had no 6000 votes in favour and has been entered into the finished room by voting on the party, with the party positions including the lending system.

This is a great democratic deficit.The fact that one agrees to the parties, but then individuals with each one of the party line different view prefers, is theoretically quite serious to mention. One does not bind me candidates, only with parties, and voices are therefore counted per party, but eventually individuals are elected.

And no one speaks about it, except Jan Terlouw, who, according to the original party line of D66, wants to reintroduce a district Selsel to bring the politician closer to the individual candidates.

Funny enough I see bread in there. For example, for the now indirectly elected Senate, We could divide the country into districts with only one seat, so that before the elections, a candidate can be elected first within the parties, thus an individual with his personal opinion, who is then pushed forward on behalf of the party as a candidate.

I think this would be a serious solution to improve democracy; A nationally elected second chamber and a Senate where all members are elected by district, with preliminary rounds so that one really learns the individual politicians and chooses individually.I am, however, for the use of Instant-runoff voting (IRC), the system used in Australia, instead of the better known First-past-the-post system of the US and UK.

At Irv/Alternative Vote One can rank candidates.So eg. On 1 The candidate of the CDA, 2 that of VVD etc. A candidate needs a majority to be elected. First the voices are counted concerns the highest placed candidates on each banknote. If one candidate has a majority it is elected, otherwise the candidate will fall off with the least votes. His voices are then given to the second choices of the citizens who voted for this candidate. This continues until one candidate has a majority. For example, in a left district the PvdA and green Links are so very much in the way and both get 25% of the votes (together half), where the VVD gets 30% and would be elected. PvdA and green Links resemble each other so then one of the two lose weight and their voices go geotenpartly to the other, so that no VVD will win where there is clearly preference for links policy.

Reading comprehension is an art.

A white elephant is an extremely rare thing that is very valuable. There is also an expression that is about the elephant in the room with a totally different meaning.The question has been put wrong. It is a contamination between two expressions.

Furthermore, in my view, the real white elephant is someone who is able to read and knows to penetrate to the real essence of a question.

A member of Quora so…

In the Netherlands, in my opinion, we are out of the way that we have been held hostage by a populist right-wing minority for a few decades.This minority has never managed to unite more than 17% of the voters behind them, but insists that they speak on behalf of the people.

They mix rightly appointed problems with hyperbolic exaggerations and because the media in the Netherlands mainly has a lot of attention for the right,-and not at all as left seems like the popusts like to argue-and the other politicians have no vision, we are not Solving the real problems.

There is a whole herd of white elephants.One of the biggest is the blindness for demographic development, the untenability of population growth. Jan Slats, former CBS boss, is very committed to this subject.

https://www.trouw.nl/samenleving…

You see it all around you, the crime figures confirm it and yet we dare not have it in the Netherlands that certain populations simply do not really integrate and excessively occur in the criminality figures.I think recently NIF state secretary has resigned.

Hollanders discriminate: We do it all.

A proverbial white elephant is “something big and precious which does not yield”.

If you have drunk too much you will see pink elephants.

Something big that everyone should be talking about, but what everyone is silent about is “ignoring the elephant in the room”.

The questioner will mean the third possibility, but I actually find nr 1 more interesting.

There are currently 2. Although there is enough talk about it.

  1. The climate is a gekte.

This is going wrong because the draconian and little concretely contributing measures are more and more people will grow financially above the head.

  • Immigration.
  • There is widespread misuse of asylum procedures, whole villages being terrorized by asylum seekers in certain centres and the taxation of our social system is disproportionately burdensome. Even if this perception is not entirely justified, the fact that the perception is there, but that this is swept under the carpet by the government is a ticking time bomb. Sooner or later the bomb folds and then more and more violent explosions follow.

    Leave a Reply