Freeing up the labor market by making it easier for employers to hire and fire workers would reduce the gap between temporary and permanent work.
Bad energy decisions in Germany are yielding bad results for Germans. Americans should be aware that recent government actions here on energy are pointing results in the same direction.
European leaders continue to talk tough about supporting Ukraine against Russia, but European peoples are less enthused.
Europe’s move toward decarbonization 30 years ago has resulted in skyrocketing energy prices, the need for severe conservation, possible rationing that could shut down entire industrial sectors and likely future blackouts.
Europe’s energy shortages – exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – were originally caused by low wind resources, increased demand from COVID lockdowns, and cut backs of natural gas by Russia. Despite putting Europeans in energy poverty, the EU and UK are keeping to their energy transition rushing into wind and solar power, rather than using domestically produced oil, natural gas, and coal.
Biden’s America Mimics Europe’s Goals and Regulatory Actions
If winning is not the goal, the war is already lost, and Putin’s dictatorial power will be further enhanced. It will prove that the U. S. and NATO actually are weak and ineffectual.
As Ayn Rand has said, “Morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers.” To Putin, his “moral” crusade is far more important than Russia’s GDP.
What Putin fears is not just NATO’s defensive armaments but their ideas—most fundamentally, America’s arms and ideas, specifically the concept of individual rights.
As Ayn Rand observed, a compromise between two opposite principles – such as between freedom and government controls in a welfare state – is never sustainable,
Europe’s immigration failures — enabled by denial and appeasement — are symptoms of a moral-intellectual vacuum.
We should remember and appreciate episodes in history like those in Lithuania in January 1991, in which a people oppressed by socialist tyranny said, “No,” and insisted upon regaining their freedom.
Without competition among experts, we can expect more expert failure in the future.
The full judgement of the Swedish experiment must wait a while.
There is a realignment of politics underway in the UK and most other developed countries; in the UK it is now almost complete, thanks in no small part to Brexit whereas in some other countries it is still happening; Brexit did not cause this realignment, but it was caused by it.
“Laissez-faire” Stockholm seems to fare better than locked-down New York.
Contrary to the U.S., where President Trump and Governor Cuomo and countless other political figures compete for the attention of their constituents and populace and underlings, the Swedish experience has been one of decentralized decision-makers and arms-length officials calling the shots.
The response by the EU has been mind boggling: instead of relaxing its tight rules, it has doubled down, and in recent years expanded its War on Innovation ever more.
There’s a neglected dark side to the Swedish welfare model that its “democratic socialist” admirers seldom mention.
There is one final group in this fight for Europe’s future, which gives at least some hope.
From freedom to socialism and partially back again.
Fortunately for its citizens, but unfortunately for those who think Sweden is still socialist, the Swedish government, more or less by universal consensus, turned sharply back toward capitalism beginning in about 1995.
The best solution would be if the British authorities followed a policy of laissez-faire.
Despite some of the world’s highest taxes, Europe’s welfare states are fiscally unsustainable, suffering from slowly worsening structural deficits.