Simon Betschinger on X (Translated) - "France spends 57% of its economic output through the state, while Switzerland spends only 32%. Despite this, Swiss households have a purchasing-power-adjusted median income that is around 26% higher. Employment rates are higher, students perform better in PISA tests, and people are more satisfied with their lives. Particularly noteworthy: In France, only 22% of people trust their national government, while in Switzerland it is 62%. The comparison shows: A good society does not arise from the state collecting and distributing as much money as possible."
The chaos in France is a ‘warning signal’ for Australia’s public spending and rising costs - "France’s finances are buckling under its generous welfare state. France’s high public debt, stagnant economy and universal social security benefits have created a “binary” situation, Hartigan said, where citizens’ demands for better services and cost-of-living help are clashing with the country’s increasingly dire fiscal position. France has not balanced its budget since 1974. Meanwhile, total public debt as a share of the economy has swelled to nearly 120%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Australia’s total government debt pile looks benign in comparison at 53%. But a decade ago our debt was 40% of GDP, and a decade before that it was just under 10%. Hartigan said France’s lacklustre economy had compounded its fiscal problems, underlining how Australia needed to work hard to boost productivity. “If you think about trajectories, they [France’s challenges] give us an idea of where we could potentially be if we continue down this path,” Hartigan said. “It’s a warning signal.” Bob Breunig, the director of the ANU’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, said there was a growing gap between what voters believed the government should be able to do, and what politicians were able to deliver. “One thing that is happening everywhere is this narrative that the government should be able to solve all your problems, and that narrative has probably been pushed further in Europe than it has here. It’s failing in both places but it’s pointier there than here,” Breunig said. The evidence of this growing demand for government intervention is that French public spending now accounts for 58% of the economy, the IMF data shows. In contrast, Australia’s total public spending is equivalent to 40% of our national output – the highest in data stretching back to 1990, outside the pandemic, and at similar levels to the United States and the United Kingdom. “All these protesters are asking the government to help them out, but the government has maxxed out the credit card,” Breunig said, adding France’s debt was “reaching levels that are unmanageable”. “The federal government here can still borrow and has a lot of flexibility, and the French just have no money.” President Emmanuel Macron’s decade in power has been marked with failed attempts to rein in spending. “There’s a real sense that people don’t know what to do,” Breunig said. The bond market reflects growing alarm with France’s fiscal trajectory. France typically has to pay a higher interest rate on its 10-year debt than fiscally prudent Germany, and the gap between the two rates is a measure of financial markets’ confidence in France’s fiscal position. That gap is now at its widest since the European debt crisis in 2011."
Left wingers are obsessed with "sustainability" but don't care about fiscal sustainability, because they think money is fake. The fact that they think France is a model to follow speaks to their nihilism
Henrik Dahl on X - "French-language X is awash with images like this one. People to the right of centre are making fun of the spokesperson La France Insoumise chose to appear on La Grande Confrontation. I can see the funny side. A spokesperson for a left-wing party who, down to the smallest detail, signals “academic elite” and “inherited privilege”. But I would actually like to take Ms Whittaker seriously. Because she represents one of Europe’s greatest political paradoxes. The two French parties that, according to the polls, are on course to reach the decisive second round of next year’s presidential election, in May, are both running on platforms that amount to the greatest theft from the young in history. The older generation wants a very low retirement age. It wants very generous benefits. It wants an extensive welfare state. And it does not want to pay for any of it itself. So the older generation borrows the money. The debt now stands at roughly 120 per cent of France’s GDP. One day, that will stop working. Then the money will have to be repaid. And who will have to repay it? Ms Whittaker’s generation. If Ms Whittaker wanted a secure and comfortable life in middle and old age, she would vote for a fiscally responsible party such as Les Républicains. If she votes for Rassemblement National or La France Insoumise, there are many things Ms Whittaker cannot be sure of. But one thing is absolutely certain: these two parties will leave her and her generation with a gigantic bill for decades of overspending. Who will pay France’s enormous debt? Ms Whittaker’s generation. Who will have to carry on working far longer than their grandparents did? Ms Whittaker’s generation. And who will suffer when the French welfare state becomes much smaller than it is today? That’s right: Ms Whittaker and her generation. They are the ones who will face poorer healthcare and poorer care for the elderly. Because the leaders of the party she supports have economic plans that extend no further than their own generation. That makes Ms Whittaker a perfect illustration of a concept developed by the great French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu: méconnaissance. For Bourdieu, méconnaissance meant systematically misrecognising the social world and the relations of power that shape it - including one’s own position within it. Think of the middle manager who believes he belongs to society’s elite, yet fails to see that he is treated and paid only marginally better than the workers on the shop floor. Or the impoverished farmer who imagines himself a business magnate because he employs a couple of people who are even worse off. That sort of profound misunderstanding of one’s place in society. It is hard to imagine anyone of Ms Whittaker’s age displaying a greater degree of méconnaissance than she does. And I have not even touched on the méconnaissance of a woman who believes that still more immigration will give her a safer future."
Melissa Chen on X - "I think what's happening in the Western Europe is that fiscal discipline has gone out the window in much the same way parental discipline has (in fact, it might be related). The fact that strikes are too often the natural response to budgetary restraint tells me that a large part of the French electorate is living in denial of the basic constraints of public finance. This is like denying the law of gravity. Markets obviously have taken notice. It's the same when parents stop demanding discipline and enforcing boundaries - children grow to become less able to handle delayed gratification or the consequences of their choices. Societies that lose the habit of fiscal restraint follow a similar path. Spending becomes an entitlement. Deficits are treated as temporary or someone else’s problem. The hard arithmetic of interest payments and primary balances is dismissed as austerity. The bond market is sending signals saying "stop." What scares the market is something other than the burning cars. It is what they symbolize - that there is so little understanding of the need for fiscal consolidation. In April, there is a presidential election. Mélenchon wants the central bank to cancel debt, and Marine Le Pen wants to lower the retirement age. The market might be starting to fear the election more than the debt itself. In 1981, François Mitterrand promised a break with capitalism. Capital responded by breaking with France, and two years later he was forced to change course. Back then, France could devalue. Today, the country has the euro. And be careful about counting on the European Central Bank (ECB) to come to the rescue as it did during the euro crisis. Back then, inflation was too low, and the ECB could print money without compromising its target. Today, inflation is too high. As the sick man of Europe, France should consider the Chinese concept of chi ku (吃苦) - eating bitterness. It is the idea of willingly enduring hardship, delayed gratification, in the belief that perseverance builds strength and later reward. China’s rapid industrialization and infrastructure build-out were not painless; they involved massive savings, hard trade-offs, and a cultural willingness to accept hardships and restraints for future gains. Admiring Chinese growth while rejecting the discipline that made it possible is incoherent. Without a willingness to eat some bitterness on the fiscal front, French admiration for China’s results remains hollow, and the bond market will continue to impose its own, less voluntary version of discipline."
César A. Hidalgo on X - "Why are French university students lining up for lunch at 11am when the cafeteria opens at noon? I took this picture on my way to work this morning because it is a good lesson in “shadow prices.” In May, France extended €1 university meals to all students. Previously, those not eligible for assistance paid €3.30. The result was not cheaper meals, but shortages. Demand surged, and students now queue an hour or more in advance to secure their lunch. What they used to pay with money, they now pay with time. And this is a lesson in shadow prices. It tells us that students are willing to sacrifice an additional hour to save €2.30, so they are implicitly valuing their time at €2.30 an hour or less. That's awful. 11 am is one of the best times to study. You are alert, but not yet tired. Even if a fraction of them studied at this time, there could be more value than the one saved by the “cheaper” meal. While the government did provide €50 million in additional funding for 2026, for a system serving more than 3 million higher-education students (about 8 cents per student per day), the problem illustrates something deeper about France. Don't get me wrong. I love living here, and I work hard every day to contribute to this country. But too many French institutions operate as though people's time were free. It is a system where enormous resources flow through the state, and simple transactions are replaced by forms, permissions, and waiting. People grow accustomed to this dependency, sometimes even demanding more of it. The implicit message of the system is that your time is cheap, your initiative is unwelcome, and your ability to decide for yourself is something to be managed. It is a sad situation because I genuinely believe France can be one of the best places in the world to live. But people are tired. And I'm not talking about those who looted sporting goods stores and vandalized public buildings over the weekend. I'm talking about the butchers, bakers, and produce sellers I meet every week at the market. The small antique dealers who worry that a mob could destroy the little capital they have. I talked to many of them yesterday. They are scared and they know there is nothing for them to do other than hide. A country that values its people should value their time. Vive la France!"
Brivael Le Pogam on X - "Mélenchon a présenté le schéma qui doit sauver la France. Je l'ai regardé de près. C'est une machine à mouvement perpétuel, et l'histoire a déjà testé cette machine plusieurs fois. Je vais vous montrer comment ça finit à chaque fois. Regardez les chiffres sur son écran. À gauche, 250 milliards de dépenses par an. À droite, 267 milliards de recettes. Autrement dit, chaque euro dépensé par l'État reviendrait tout seul, avec 7 % de bonus. Si c'était vrai, aucun pays au monde n'aurait de dette. Il suffirait de dépenser plus pour s'enrichir. D'abord, ce qu'il oublie sur l'économie. La richesse ne naît pas de la dépense. Elle naît de la production : quelqu'un fabrique quelque chose que quelqu'un d'autre veut acheter, à un prix qui couvre ses coûts. L'argent n'est qu'un ticket qui donne droit à une part de cette production. Distribuer plus de tickets sans produire plus ne crée rien, ça fait juste monter les prix. Son « cercle vertueux » suppose que l'argent distribué est dépensé en France, chez des entreprises françaises, qui embauchent en France. En réalité, une grosse partie part en importations : téléphones, voitures, vêtements, énergie. L'argent sort du cercle. Le déficit commercial explose, la dette aussi. Et la France ne part pas de zéro. Dépenses publiques parmi les plus élevées du monde développé, plus de 3 300 milliards de dette, des taux d'intérêt qui coûtent déjà des dizaines de milliards par an. Ajouter 250 milliards par an, c'est demander aux marchés de prêter encore plus à un pays qui annonce qu'il ne compte pas rembourser par la croissance réelle. On a déjà vu ce film en France. 1981 : Mitterrand lance une relance massive, nationalisations, embauches publiques, hausse des minima. Résultat : inflation à deux chiffres, trois dévaluations du franc en dix-huit mois, et en 1983 le tournant de la rigueur. Deux ans pour revenir en arrière. Et à l'époque, on avait encore notre propre monnaie pour amortir le choc. Le Chili d'Allende, 1970-1973 : hausse des salaires, nationalisations, contrôle des prix. En trois ans, l'inflation dépasse les 500 %, les rayons se vident, les files d'attente deviennent la norme. Le Venezuela, le modèle que Mélenchon a ouvertement salué à la mort de Chávez en 2013. Le pays avec les plus grandes réserves de pétrole du monde. Redistribution massive, contrôle des prix, expropriations. Résultat : hyperinflation à des dizaines de milliers de pour cent, pénuries de nourriture et de médicaments, et plus de sept millions de Vénézuéliens partis. Un quart de la population. Voilà la mécanique, toujours la même. Les dépenses explosent, les prix montent. Le gouvernement accuse les « spéculateurs » et bloque les prix. Les producteurs arrêtent de produire à perte. Les rayons se vident. On rationne. On contrôle les entreprises, puis les mouvements de capitaux, puis les gens qui veulent partir. Et ceux qui protestent deviennent des ennemis du peuple. Poussée jusqu'au bout, cette logique a produit les pires catastrophes du XXe siècle. La collectivisation soviétique et la famine en Ukraine : des millions de morts. Le Grand Bond en avant de Mao : des dizaines de millions de morts de faim. Le Cambodge des Khmers rouges : près d'un quart de la population. Personne n'a commencé par un massacre. Tout le monde a commencé par un schéma au tableau qui promettait que l'État pouvait remplacer la production par la volonté. Je ne dis pas que Mélenchon veut ça. Je dis qu'il connaît cette histoire mieux que quiconque, et qu'il présente quand même un schéma où l'argent se multiplie tout seul. Soit il n'y croit pas, et il ment aux plus fragiles. Soit il y croit, et c'est encore plus inquiétant. La seule chose qui a jamais sorti un peuple de la pauvreté, c'est produire plus et mieux. Pas dépenser plus. Les pays qui l'ont compris se sont enrichis. Ceux qui ont cru au cercle vertueux ont fini par fermer leurs frontières pour empêcher leurs citoyens de fuir."
Peter Slagter on X (Translated) - "The pitch from the @VVD (@QueenyRaj ) to lure billion-dollar companies to the Netherlands: "Come here, and we can tax you and dictate exactly what you can and can't do with AI!" Utterly absurd. No deepfake. We're being governed by clowns."
Blume Industries CEO Balding 大老板 on X - "This is getting roundly mocked but I think it seriously represents a real divide in mentality between Europe and the US."
After warning about fascism, the Left proposes seizing private corporations - "The endless cries of creeping fascism from the Left have become exhausting, particularly when progressives keep reminding us that their problem isn't authoritarianism itself, but who gets to wield the authority. The most recent example? Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton - a man who routinely warns about fascism - advocating for the government to seize control of private companies. Reich wants a Democrat-controlled government to cut off Elon Musk's government contracts and prepare to nationalize SpaceX and Starlink if they regain power. In the spirit of Marx himself, Reich wants the state to take ownership of Musk's lucrative companies. The thinly-veiled democratic socialist also proposes a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. The solution to all our societal ills is to apparently empower wealthy Washington politicians to go shopping in someone else's wallet. The nationalization proposal reveals something important about the political left's approach to power. Musk's companies are undeniably influential. His government contracts deserve scrutiny, just as those awarded to any major defense contractor do. Reasonable people can debate whether the government relies too heavily on private companies for critical infrastructure, whether contracts are structured properly, and how to ensure accountability. But nationalization is a different proposition entirely. It's not simply regulating a company or enforcing the terms of a contract. It's transferring ownership from private hands to the government because officials (or, in this case, a prominent progressive intellectual) don't trust the person running it. We're supposed to believe that concentrating even more power in the hands of government is the solution to the dangers of concentrated power? The irony is difficult to miss. We're constantly told that wealthy individuals exerting influence over public affairs constitute a threat to democracy. Yet Reich's proposed remedy would give the government ownership and control over companies whose technology has enormous implications for communications, space exploration, and national security. Apparently, concentrated power is dangerous when Elon Musk holds it but potentially liberating when Washington does? Not every regulation is socialism. But government ownership of private enterprise is a distinctly collectivist answer to the problem Reich identifies, and it deserves to be recognized as such. There's also a basic question of consistency here. If the government can seize or nationalize a company because its owner has become too powerful or politically objectionable, what principle limits that power? Who decides when a private citizen has crossed the line, and what prevents a future administration from applying the same logic to businesses it dislikes? These are precisely the questions one would expect from people concerned about authoritarianism. Instead, we get years of dire warnings about rising fascism on the Right, followed by proposals on the left to put private enterprise under government control. The rhetoric can't shroud the underlying temptation: concentrate power in the hands of people convinced they can be trusted with it. Before lecturing the country about the dangers of authoritarianism, the Left should explain why its preferred solution involves giving the government more power."
Technically, Communism isn't Fascism
Michael Deacon: Today’s Left-wing radicals are nothing but whacking great toffs - "Why exactly is it that so many of today’s rich kids are becoming socialists, instead of socialites? In my view, the answer is linked to an awkward truth at the heart of Left-wing politics. We often call it “the politics of envy”. And that’s true. But it’s not, as widely assumed, the envy the poor feel for the rich. It’s the envy the rich feel for the even richer. In other words, this is the politics of people who are privileged – but not quite as privileged as they feel they should be. So they yearn, with furious vengeance, to tear down the people who are even more privileged than they are. Or, as the American author Rob Henderson has put it, the real battle is not between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. It’s between the “haves” and the “have-mores”. Still, let’s not kid ourselves that this is a wholly new phenomenon. Consider the case of the original rebellious rich kid: Karl Marx. In 1837, when Marx was 19, his father – a successful lawyer who owned a number of vineyards – sent him a letter, deploring the way that “weaklings” choose to “quarrel with the world because they do not possess, without labour or trouble, well-furnished palaces with vast sums of money and elegant carriages”. Such “embitterment disgusts me”, Marx Sr told his teenage son – “and you are the last person from whom I would expect it. What grounds can you have for it? Has not everything smiled on you ever since your cradle?” A pertinent question for today’s pampered young radicals. Although I don’t suppose they’ll answer it."
"Every communist leader you can think of was a downwardly mobile loser from the elite class. Not surprisingly, the people most in favor of communism today come from the “high-education, low-income” crowd."
World Health Care Systems 'In Crisis' - "A MAJOR study conducted in 23 countries shows a majority of people -- in many cases a large majority -- believe their nation's health care system is "in a state of crisis". But although half (52%) the British public think this, larger majorities in 19 other countries believe their own health care systems are 'in crisis'. These include France, where 58% of people feel their nation's health care system is in crisis, USA (65%), Germany (78%) and Poland (the highest at 93%). The average across all 23 countries shows 65% feel their nation's health care systems are in crisis, and 31% feel they are in 'good shape'. But the study reveals that money is not necessarily thought to be the answer to health care problems. In most countries the public blame inefficient management rather than insufficient funding. In Britain, half (49%) blame management compared with 37% who blame funding problems."
Clearly, it's "capitalism" that's to blame and evil conservatives are underfunding healthcare
The USA actually had an average level of satisfaction with the government's handling of health care and above average assessment of its healthcare system, but that won't stop left wingers continuing to bash it and claim it's the worst in the developed world
hamsters on X - "Leftists be like: “They're using the guy beheading your brother in the street to distract you from your real enemy: Jeff Bezos delivering medicine to your front door overnight.”"
Toronto Allan Gardens food volunteers fined $600 - "In a statement to the Star, the city confirmed the fines were for multiple violations, including holding an event of more than 25 people without a permit, driving a vehicle off a roadway without a permit and putting up a tent without a permit. The city added that its initial goal was to “work with the organizers to help them continue their operations while meeting the requirements that apply to all organized events in city parks.” It went on, “after those efforts did not result in the required permit being obtained, bylaw enforcement officers attended the site. Officers first provided education and sought voluntary compliance before charges were issued.” But Bal disputes this, saying they did try to work with the bylaw officers. She said they had a permit when they first started the operation 17 years ago and had forgotten to renew it. She said the bylaw officers could have given them more leeway. “At least say, ‘OK, we’ll give you a week or whatever to get your stuff together then we’ll come back,’” she said. A volunteer with the food bank that operates opposite them in the park was also fined. Like Bal and Khosa’s hot food service, the food bank has operated in the park for a number of years. Stefanos Lialias, who has volunteered with the food bank for more than a year, said his group also tried to work with the officers. “I said, ‘Look, can we just have a meeting about this?’” He said the officer had no interest in working with them. “There was no accommodation at all. They said, ‘Nope, we’ve got to give you a ticket.’”"
Meme - Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand: "Everyone claims to want people fed, housed, educated, and treated with dignity. That's the easiest moral position imaginable, requiring neither thought nor effort. The sincerity of that commitment is revealed by whether you're willing to examine what actually achieves those outcomes, what undermines them, and at whose expense. By the socialist standard, even forced labor can be justified in pursuit of these goals, and even policies producing the opposite results can be defended as virtuous. Virtue signaling earns applause for good intentions. Genuine concern demands understanding, evidence, and results. Far too many seem content with the applause."
"I WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT THE SiDE THAT WANTS PEOPLE FED, HOUSED, EDUCATED, AND TREATED WITH DIGNITY."
Meme - Earth: "Breathe or suffocate. Find shelter or freeze. Grow or trade for food, or have no food."
Earth: "I'm reality."
Upset left winger: "Evil capitalism!"
Chris on X - "Democrats went from promising to “end welfare as we know it” to complaining that more people aren’t on welfare in just 30 years. Big reason why I can never even think about voting for a Democrat these days."
Handre on X - "The welfare cliff does not trap poor families by accident. Congress engineered a benefits system where earning one additional dollar can trigger simultaneous cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers, and childcare subsidies, collapsing your effective income by $5 or more. The government built a cage, and somehow we call it a safety net. Take a single mother in Houston. She earns $22,000 annually and qualifies for $35,000 in combined federal and state benefits. She gets a raise to $25,000. That $3,000 in new wages costs her $18,000 in benefits. Her employer rewarded her productivity; the state punished her for it. No rational actor climbs that wall. This is price control, but applied to human ambition. Every welfare threshold functions as a marginal tax rate that would make a Scandinavian bureaucrat jealous, often exceeding 80 or even 100 percent on the next dollar earned. This disincentive is the system's core mechanism. Dependency concentrates political power. Families tethered to benefit rolls vote to protect those rolls, and the politicians who administer the programs vote to expand them. The cliff self-perpetuates. Free market economists have traced this perverse incentive structure for decades, but the administrative state expands regardless, because a bureaucracy that manages poverty also survives by it. Genuine exit from poverty requires accumulating capital, building skills, and taking calculated risks. The welfare cliff taxes all three."
Mike Lee on X - "Federal welfare programs are highly effective—as a means of growing government And as a means of locking the poor into poverty"
GRANDPA’s FREE ADVICE on X - "25 years of one-party Democrat control in Oregon is a masterclass in how leftist rule destroys a state’s ability to govern. This is the same state whose governor leads a system that no longer requires students to prove proficiency in reading, math, or English to graduate high school
2001–03 budget: $34 billion
• 32% education
• 25% social programs
• 12% infrastructure
• 12% administration
• 6% public safety
• 13% everything else
2025–27 budget: $140 billion (over 4× higher)
• 18% education
• 45% social programs
• 7.5% infrastructure
• 14% administration
• 5% public safety
• 10.5% everything else
Social programs went from $8.5 billion (25%) to $62.7 billion (45%) — 7 times more, nearly half the entire budget on handouts. “Healthier Oregon” spends $1.3 billion giving free medical care to illegal migrants. $724 million went to “homeless services” in 2024 — $60,412 per homeless person — while the homeless population rose. Walk Portland’s streets and see where that money actually went. Oregon schools sank to the bottom of the country in reading and math. Democrats’ solution? Pass a law eliminating proficiency requirements to graduate, extend it again, then brag about higher graduation rates. They’re not lifting people out of poverty or fixing education. They’re building a permanent dependency empire with themselves in charge. Their ads say it plainly: “Vote for us or Republicans will take away your benefits!” Governor Kotek can’t blame Trump. Democrats have controlled Oregon the entire time — even as the federal government flipped party control five times. This is what one-party Democrat rule delivers. #Oregon #DemocratFailure #Accountability"
Steve · Millionaire Habits on X - "If you think all Billionaires exploit people by underpaying them, now is your chance to start your own business and pay everyone at least $100/hour. Show us how it’s done. Be the example."
Meme - François Valentin @Valen10Francois: "It's funny to me that leftists internationally fantasize about China when inequality there is higher than even in the United States. In fact China's tax and transfer system has virtually no redistributive effect"
"Figure 2: Income Inequality before and after Redistribution. China's tax structure has virtually no redistributive capacity - only the personal income tax has a progressive rate structure, but less than 10% of the income earners pay any income tax."
Michael A. Arouet on X - "This is eye-opening. Europe’s share of global tech R&D has collapsed from 23% in 2005 to just 8% today, while the US has climbed to 62% and China has risen from near zero to 15%. South Korea now outspends Germany, France, the UK, and Italy combined in tech R&D. Yep, you read that right. This is the predictable result of policy choices that systematically favor control and redistribution over growth. Layered regulation, data rules, AI restrictions, labor rigidities, and precautionary frameworks, raises the cost and slows the pace of turning ideas into products, forcing companies to spend scarce resources on compliance rather than experimentation. High taxation and expansive redistributive systems extract capital that would otherwise fund private R&D and risk-taking, while shrinking the after-tax reward for building something new and scaling it. The broader left-leaning mindset that prioritizes equality of outcome over dynamism treats entrepreneurial success as something to be managed, taxed, or shared rather than unleashed and rewarded. Places that protect the returns to innovation and keep barriers low continue to pull ahead, attracting talent and capital that Europe increasingly loses. Europe’s relative decline is the cumulative outcome of treating dynamism as a problem to be regulated rather than the engine of prosperity. Without a shift toward lighter rules, lower burdens on enterprise, and greater tolerance for unequal outcomes from unequal effort, the gap will keep widening, and Europe will become an open-air museum for wealthy Americans and Asians."
StanFirewings on X - "There is also DEI plan I need to have in place while applying to EU research grants."
Institute for Empirical Study Of Economic Thought on X - "And it's not just tech. Total R&D spend, % of GDP (World Bank, 2023): Israel 6.4, Korea 4.9, US 3.5, China 2.6, EU 2.3. The EU set itself a 3% target for 2010. Thirteen years past the deadline it was still at 2.3%, behind China. Regulate first, innovate never."
Joey Freshwater on X - "the Great Feminization of Europe. who needs growth when you have equity"
Time for more regulation
