The Dutch "Polder model" and adjustment to market conditions

To: the OECD Subject: unemployment in Europe Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:07:29 +0200 From: "R.M. Brockhus" <sdn@planet.nl> Organization: St. Sociale databank Nederland To: news.contact@oecd.org June 11th 1997 L.s., I have read a comment in De Volkskrant of June 11th, about your analysis of rising unemployment in France and Germany, while your findings about this problem in the Netherlands and in Ireland lead to examples of good management. The Dutch "Polder model" and adjustment to market conditions is only from the outside a success. The price the population has and had to pay in terms of well-being is very high. Socially it is no success at all. Even more a huge disaster. The figures on the growth of employment in the Netherlands is mainly based on cutting jobs into smaller jobs, but on the same level of working hours in total. Besides this, the coalition between the unions, employers organisations and the government lead to a stabilisation of the production cost, which gave the Netherlands an advantage in competitiveness over the other modern economies in western Europe, but at the expense of employment in neighbouring countries like Germany and France. Your glorification of the Polder model is unjustified. It serves entirely the requirements of investors, bankers and multinationals. The local population does not - on the average - benefit at all. I advise you to read from the Internet my letter to Helmut Kohl about the revaluation of the gold reserves (in German of course). Next to that, the OECD should analyse weather people who work in a full-time job have a reasonable standard of living in the US, in England and so on, without subsidies for housing. In the Netherlands one can still survive at a civilized minimum, but the decline of social standards from 22% of the National Income in 1882, down to 16% today, with more people depending on social security, leaves no room for discussion about the growing impoverishment in a country you show as an economic example for other nations to follow. On the contrary. Today, in the same newspaper De Volkskrant, next to your jubilation, the former prime-minister Ruud Lubber (12 years in office) showed himself a convert. His anti-social policy from 1981 till 1994 caused the decline of the social environment. Today he suddenly pleas for fundamental rights on SOCIAL QUALITY for everyone. So we will ask him (multi-millionaire) not just to say "Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa", but to pay damages in cash to the millions of people he impoverished with his policy during his period of rule. Employment and well-being will sky rocket when the extravagant surpluses in savings become available for those with the lowest incomes. That cannot be done within a free market, but with a new firm taxation on excessive wealth and income, on the use of raw materials, on the environment damaging products and on the use of space, but especially on monetary liquidity (M1) in private accounts. For this last item I advise you to read the heresy of Dr. W.P. Roelofs on the Internet at sdnl.nl/thesen.htm, and if you are able te read Dutch, or have it translated from Dutch to English, you should (in my view obliged) solve the questionnaire with the name QUIZ OF LOGIC, also by the 87 years of age Dr. W.P. Roelofs at the Internet address sdnl.nl/quiz.htm I do really hope to get a serious answer on this letter, because it is unacceptable and irresponsible to leave the quality of money and it aspects out of the discussion. Greetings, R.M. Brockhus Westkade 227, 1273 RJ Huizen, 18 mei 1997 035-5244141 E-mail: sdn@planet.nl Website: sdnl.nl