Engeland, migratie, economie en de sluipende roof

Sinds de komst van de nieuwe regering in Engeland is er een opmerkelijke verschuiving zichtbaar op de arbeidsmarkt. In de particuliere sector verdwenen 100.000 banen, terwijl er in de niet-particuliere sector precies evenveel bijkwamen. Op papier lijkt dat een evenwicht, maar in werkelijkheid gaat het vaak om functies die vooral toezicht houden op de rest van de bevolking, zonder zelf wezenlijke economische waarde te creëren — hooguit via boetes en wat fiscale opbrengsten.

Since the arrival of the new government in England, a remarkable shift has been visible in the labour market. In the private sector, 100,000 jobs disappeared, while exactly the same number was created in the non-private sector. On paper, this seems like a balance, but in reality it often concerns functions that mainly supervise the rest of the population, without creating substantial economic value themselves — at most through fines and some tax revenues.

Labour, back in power after a long absence, also inherits a persistent demographic issue from the Conservatives: a migrant population of which about 80% are men and about 80% are between 18 and 30 years old. A composition that, as everywhere in the world, entails specific integration and security problems.

Meanwhile, the elderly British population is struggling to make ends meet. Every year, people die from cold because heating is unaffordable. On the other hand, many of these young migrants stay in 3- to 5-star hotels, with free room, board and pocket money. The picture is recognizable in many European countries, except in Hungary and Italy, where the political leadership has had enough. Italy wanted to outsource the reception to Albania, but the European court forbade that. Nevertheless, the Italian prime minister is sticking to the course that islands should not be flooded with young North African men. Greece also refuses any longer that Lesbos functions as a permanent reception camp.

The view from America

I have been staying in the United States for several weeks now and notice that the media climate here is completely different. The algorithm of YouTube and podcasts paints a much more positive picture of Donald Trump than we are used to in Europe. In the Maxwell case, left and right are remarkably unanimous: the documents must be made public. There are also rumors circulating about betting between Epstein and Trump, who would be the first to “conquer” Princess Diana. Biden supporters eagerly repeat this, as if moral indignation reinforces itself through repetition.

Meanwhile, according to estimates, at least 200,000 children disappear without a trace under President Biden. They are delivered to so-called sponsors, who are not checked before or after. Many end up in the sex industry or even in the organ trade.

Yet not everything is gloomy: petrol costs 75 cents per litre here, half a litre of coffee is available for 2 dollars and is fine to drink, and it is almost always between 22 and 30 degrees. Trump is popular here because, among other things, he abolished the “Biden tax” and allowed hospitality workers to keep their own tips — essential in an industry where the base salary is low and tips are 15 to 20 percent of the bill.

Economically, many American states are doing less well, except in Florida. In agricultural states such as Idaho and Montana, there is yet another problem: Canada rejects large quantities of American cheese, accounting for a loss of 1.5 billion dollars in sales. Officially because of “quality and environmental aspects”, but it feels like economic revenge.

Precious metals, markets and signals

Over to precious metals. My expectation: silver will rise to 60 to 70 dollars this year, possibly before the end of 2025. Newmont Mining has already risen about 80%, with capital flowing massively to miners. UnIn the meantime, the average investor is still buying the dip — just like just before the dotcom bubble and the financial crisis of 2007-2011.

Gold has held steady over the past six weeks, without showing a clear direction. Usually, such a phase indicates the formation of a solid soil. My estimate remains that gold could rise to $4,000 per ounce this year. Why? Because gold rises as the value of fiat money falls. Politicians everywhere continue to play Santa Claus — not for you, but for themselves and their employers.

In 2011, the silver price reached intraday levels of around $49.50 to $49.80 per troy ounce, just below that mythical $50 mark. At the time, the purchasing power of fiat money was higher than it is today, which puts the current valuation into perspective.

Also pay attention to the signs of a stock market correction: if Nvidia or Microsoft fall more than 10% in price, you have to pay attention. The most successful investor in the world is now historically high in cash. Bitcoin has been following the Nasdaq closely for three years; If the major indexes fall, bitcoin also goes down. In times of uncertainty, people flee to precious metals, as they have for 5,000 years.

Another indicator: long-term interest rates on US government bonds. If the 30-year yield rises above 5.1 to 5.5%, it will be the end of the exercise for both the US and Europe. That is why the digital euro and plans for a universal basic income are being rushed. In that scenario, your pension will disappear in its current form.

The real grip in the greenhouse

And then the ABP. There has often been talk of a “grab in the coffers” by the government. What really happened? In the eighties and nineties, the government structurally reduced the employer’s contribution to the civil servants’ pension. This was done through so-called Takeover Laws under the Lubbers cabinets. It was not a direct withdrawal of money, but years of underpayment of premiums — good for a missed inflow of approximately €15 billion.

The trade union federations accepted this at the time, but it resulted in a significant power backlog for the ABP. In 1996, the fund was privatized to prevent a recurrence. In January 2010, ABP reduced its assets by approximately €11 billion on the basis of actuarial recalculations of life expectancy, which allowed premiums to be increased and indexation to be prevented. So the money did not disappear into the pockets of third parties, but the effects for the participants were similar: less purchasing power on the pension.