The welfare state can not exist in world where the government is against population growth. You cant have a robust welfare state and make through policy and propaganda 4+ child families rare. We need an exponential curve of population to maintain it, especialy when its at european levels. Mass immigration of uneducated people from low income countries doesnt cover the gap, especially when the government extends welfare to them.

This is all a fact.

That is obviously not true. You don’t even define what a welfare state is or when a country stops being a welfare state.

> Which it can’t.

The welfare state for corporate interests is alive and well though, and costs much more.

(2025) "Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget" -- https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-feder...

(2024) https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/07/16/100-years-of-risi...

> There is nothing to disagree about. With current demographics projection no amount of taxes can cover welfare states

Okay? Let's get rid of that much more expensive type of welfare then!

As if we have "real capitalism" - not even on a scale of local bakeries any more. Even the small businesses often are just a shop owned by a corporation. Not that I'm against some level of concentration, a lot of economic activity requires it. A lot of products are too expensive and require a certain scale to be viable at all.

What is the goal of economic activity anyway? For the few to live well, while the majority struggles? By "struggle" I don't mean that the majority already lives in the streets, to me it is enough that they have to be afraid. Of getting sick, of losing the job, of anything bad happening. I saw myself how a single unfortunate event could spiral out of control, and a guy making a lot of money in enterprise sales ended up alone, broken, and sick in the streets. I count all those having to fear such a development as part of the "losers", even if they are still making money and living in their house now. That fear, suppressed or not, should not be necessary, and it influences stress levels and decisions, consciously or not.

I mean, you are also right with your message, and I actually agree.

The flow of money around and away from too many people should not be happening. Being part of the economy should be easy for the majority, and real "welfare" should only be necessary for the sick and otherwise temporarily or fully disabled.

If a lot of normal people need welfare, something is not right.

But then you need an economy that provides those easy options to participate and get enough of a share.

You also need a system where an unfortunate event (or some) does not put you into an unescapable downward spiral, and provide a way back into the economy.