Anna

Now they’re going to levy a 22% tax on interest earned on cash held in share ISAs—this is nothing short of punishing people who make an effort to save. Reeves and the Labour government do nothing but raise taxes and squander money, yet they’re making the country poorer and poorer; it’s no wonder young people are leaving

What’s the point saving your money anymore? First Reeves wants you to move your savings to Isas now she may have decided “I’ll tax that too”. This government is determined to make the country go bankrupt. Completely incompetent. This is why young people are fleeing.

The UK is having the hottest day during May in recorded history of 34.8C (94.6F)

@nickshirleyy @GovTimWalz @IlhanMN Great work exposing this, Nick! Arrest them all and hold the enablers accountable

🚨The Minnesota fraud empire is falling: Yesterday 15 fraudsters were charged and $90 million was busted. The MSM tried to cover for the fraudsters. @GovTimWalz called it "white supremacy" to expose it and @IlhanMN is completely SILENT. Independent journalism defeated an entire fraud network upheld by billions of dollars with support from corrupt politicians who allowed this fraud and the MSM who failed to report it. Major win for America and hardworking law-abiding taxpaying citizens. This is just the beginning. Arrest them all.

@FoxNews A tribute to the unsung heroes who gave their lives for their country

JUST NOW: President Trump lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as part of Memorial Day observance at Arlington National Cemetery.

@MikeFar62 @Chartfest1 @go_klaus Interesting take on BPI. Treating every stock equally makes sense for broader market sentiment. Thanks for sharing!

@Chartfest1 @go_klaus How it Works Unlike standard market indexes (like the S&P 500) which are heavily skewed by mega-cap stocks, the BPI treats every stock equally. [1] •Buy vs. Sell Signals: Every stock in the index is evaluated using a P&F chart. A stock is either strictly on a buy signal or a

Saturday Poll. The next 100 points for the S&P?

@MaytownMichael @saylordocs Assuming that assets are gradually sold off after retirement (similar to the 4% withdrawal rule), but ignoring market volatility, inflation and taxation. Social security provides lifelong payments and acts as a safety net; it is not a direct comparison with pure investment

@saylordocs An S&P index fund doesn't pay a dividend. So your calculation assumes that the retiree liquidates the fund holdings over time. How many years of payouts are you assuming?

The max one can pay into social security per year is $10,453.20. If you did that every year from age 18 until retirement, the max you’ll get from SS is $4,873 /month. If you put it into an S&P index fund instead, you would receive $32,583 per month. Social Security is a scam.

@NorthAmericanU2 @JasonOnTheDrums Smith has made it clear that he will campaign in favour of Canada remaining in the EU; this appears to be more of a political strategy than a globalist conspiracy

@JasonOnTheDrums Danielle Smith is a globalist. She wants to dismantle Canada by any means in order to reconstruct Canada on the European model of sovereign states around an EU-style government. I believe she rigged the whole scenario we see unfolding today, exploiting & betraying her pals.

#ableg Danielle Smith: Chief of Staff (Rob Anderson) co-authored the separatist blueprint Her UCP constituency president (Mitch Sylvestre) led the separatist petition Her pal (David Parker) ran the voter data breach The UCP is a separatist movement Stop pretending otherwise

@JohnMisiewicz1 @its_The_Dr You’re absolutely right! Under Harris’s leadership, the US would be a disaster zone: Trump in prison, the Straits controlled by terrorists, turmoil in Europe, soaring oil prices, and the country a laughing stock on the international stage.

@its_The_Dr Trump would be illegally in prison, the Strait would be run by terrorists, the Ukraine would only be the beginning of European invasions, California gas prices would be the country’s model, the U.S. would be the laughing stock of the world

How do you respond to this,

@tito @ZeitgeistExplo1 Agree！

@ZeitgeistExplo1 I might have missed it in the wall of text, but the main reason for European stagnation is excessive regulations, excessive taxation, government spend > 50% GDP and an economic model based on collectivism, statalism and dirigism

🇪🇺Is there a way to reverse the European decline? I wanted to bring together a few considerations. A) Is there a problem? Relative decline compared to the US exists, but the catch-up of the rest of the world to Europe resembles Russia’s advances in Ukraine [Pic 1-2]. The main case can be made for developed Western European countries: structurally lower growth than the US, and lower growth than much of the rest of the world. European history in the new millennium is Italian stagnation, but also 150 million people quadrupling their GDP per capita. B) Let’s set the bar: 2% long-term real GDP per capita growth is more or less the upper limit a developed country can aspire to. The US has been hitting this benchmark with stunning consistency for roughly 200 years [Pic 3], and it is a good proxy for the pace of advancement of the technological frontier. Looking nostalgically at France's or Italy’s 5% annual growth rates in the 1970s is foolish: Poland and Bulgaria are going through that development phase right now. Growth rates must always be compared to the level of development, otherwise comparisons are meaningless. From the perspective of long-term structural prospects, a Brazil growing at 1.9% is far more worrying than a Germany growing at 1% from a base 5 times larger. So, our growth targets are: 1) 2% GDP per capita growth for the countries at the tech frontier. 2) 2% GDP per capita growth for the less developed countries. The latter is broadly in line, especially net of the sovereign debt crisis, which is unlikely to repeat, but Western Europe will likely act as a ceiling on others’ development, so missing (1) could mean reducing the room for (2). C) Let’s identify the problems: Why do developed European countries struggle to grow at the US pace of 2%, and instead grow closer to 1%? I would say the main differences are two: 1) Demography. Not just demographic growth: the effect is mainly driven by demographic composition, though the two are obviously linked. GDP per capita is commonly understood as a proxy for production. That is not wrong if properly interpreted, but in my opinion it is misleading, especially when looking at long-term trends. GDP per capita is essentially a proxy for the level of technological adoption. Historical growth in GDP per capita is not people consuming more wheat; it is people consuming, or investing in, increasingly diversified and complex products. Of course, in order to afford them, people must exchange things perceived as having comparable value, meaning they must also produce increasingly diversified and complex goods. Demand determines supply as much as the opposite. Ageing slows per capita growth long before population decline becomes visible, which then later hits aggregate GDP growth. Older populations have less dynamic consumption patterns and push the working population toward less dynamic forms of production. The history of GDP per capita and wage growth in Japan and Italy has been remarkably similar, and the main things the two countries have in common are the timing of their catch-up phase and the fact that they are the two countries furthest ahead along the demographic curve. Demography appears to be a dominant factor behind growth dynamics of developed countries in recent decades, and Germany, France, and the UK are entering a demographic environment similar to that of Italy and Japan 20 years ago. The positive side is that many middle- and low-income countries have worryingly low TFRs relative to their level of development (another metric that must always be compared to development level in cross-country analysis). China is a disaster in this regard, but one of a moltitude. Once again, the US seems to be the only major competitor with both a competitive TFR and a growing population stock. 2) Scale. The US dominates almost all scale-based frontier technology sectors, while China is becoming disruptively competitive in several scale-based mid-value sectors. In many low-scale-dependent sectors, Europe retains extraordinary leadership. The semiconductor industry is emblematic: Europe leads in the most complex and highly specialized segment, EUV lithography machines, which does not require scale and instead relies on a myriad of highly specialized SMEs spread across the European territory, mainly along the Blue Banana. But Europe remains weak in almost every scale-based segment of the industry. One should realize that this pattern repeats across multiple sectors. The problem is that scale-based sectors are a major source of growth when competing against rivals capable of exploiting scale advantages, eventually also in military competition. Losing scale-intensive sectors can create significant employment stress, particularly in high-volume industries. Most other problems ultimately derive from these two structural issues. I honestly do not believe that regulation or taxation levels explain the growth differential, except insofar as they are linked to demographics and fragmented scale coordination. To be clear, reforms in these areas matter and can play a big role in year over year competition, but I'd rule out the differences between the US and Europe are large enough to justify the structural growth gap, the US is neither a tax nor a regulation heaven, and many successfull States have effective tax rates very similar to those of Western Europe. By contrast, even ignoring the Imperial muscles of the US (and one shouldn't), the broader effects of advanced ageing, weaker presence in scale-based sectors, and underinvestment caused by fragmented national systems are clearly large enough to explain the divergence in growth rates, both absolute and per capita. D) Solutions? This analysis leaves little room for hidden or quick solutions, and I do not believe such solutions exist. I know this is unpopular, but I think this is the reality. Both demography and full European integration require decades. The latter is 'slowly' ongoing, while for the former one can only speculate, and reversing ageing dynamics within the next 30y is practically impossible. Again, paying less for a notary in order to launch a startup is good, but it is not enough to reverse long term growth macro-trends. One may find hopium in tech developments, certain technological waves may indeed be better suited to ageing societies, automation being the obvious example; or in questions such as: “Could societies ageing earlier gain some kind of first mover advantage over societies ageing later?” as I was recently asked (so far the former are losing). These and many others remain speculative or marginal considerations, and it is unclear how they could compensate for the broader structural disadvantages described above. To solve Europe’s scale problem we need: -Integration of regulations across as many sectors as possible; -Fiscal convergence, either through convergence of national legislation or through a larger share of EU-level spending in total expenditure, or both, especially regarding subsidies and intra-EU tariff equivalents; -Integration of infrastructure and capital markets; -Regional security and a common European strategy. Each of these processes is already ongoing to some extent, but they are long and complex processes that depend on one another and involve significant transition costs. As things stand, people and businesses plan within fragmented regulatory, infrastructural, financial, and strategic systems. Every additional step toward integration brings only marginal immediate gains. Positively there's high switching costs, and what is obtained is quite resilient. E) Conclusions: We're slow. Are we in a hurry? There's a long pipeline of things to do and the sooner the better, but Europe has leverage and time to manage both enemies and allies. I do not think it is an unambitious goal that, over the next 50 years, Europe should aim to remain as wealthy relative to the rest of the world as it is today, which requires a minimum level of sound political decision-making, while gradually bringing the main pillars of integration to functional completion. Europe’s share of global GDP will continue to decline for some time simply because of demographics, but being rich matters far more than being numerous. I cannot ignore the idea that a Eurasian order is inherently more stable for plenty of reasons, and such an order cannot ultimately be centered anywhere other than Europe. That moment may eventually come. But today, everything still suggests that this will be another American century, and recognizing this is a strength, not an admission of weakness. Europe’s main domestic objective is managing the difficult process of integration, a monumental task deserving of every available resource. Its main foreign policy objective should increasingly be to speak as a Union, keeping Russia close and the US closer. As for the rest, perhaps Europeans should complain less. I fully support self-criticism and the constant struggle to improve, but this should not become defeatism. Our problems concern how many euros to print to finance pensions and whether we can overtake the US in more frontier technologies. In Vietnam there are 100 million people producing goods for us for $500 a month, with a TFR below replacement level, no widespread pension or healthcare systems, and entirely dependent on the goodwill of the US and China. If French budget puzzle seem complicated, most fiscal situations around the world are generally worse. Europe is not the land of decline; it is the land of hope. The current European leadership was born in a Europe still divided in two, and in just 30 years it has achieved an extraordinary number of successes in integration, while also lifting roughly 150 million people out of Soviet poverty. People can debate convergence criteria all they want, but has there ever been a period in European history in which Europe was this uniformly developed and almost every country enjoyed such comparable prospects of long-term stability? The founders of the modern European Union are pioneers of a new era that visionaries already foresaw as inevitable for Europe 150 years ago. They are not late administrators of decline. The European Union therefore cannot be nostalgic. The past no longer exists; nostalgia can only be directed toward realities that are gone forever. Europe must not return to something, it must move toward something else. The future is undefined and must be built. That makes things difficult, but it also makes Europe the only civilization with a truly open and elastic horizon of hope. China’s “common prosperity” is a joke, and the whole world knows it; the Chinese themselves may soon realize it too. The American Dream has become a crumpled cigar, that is the project genuinely at risk of turning into nostalgia. The European Union has no existing social pact to preserve; it is building one out of many different social pacts, and that is why it moves slowly. The final result may well be worthy of the ambition behind the project, but it will require an extraordinary civilizational effort, and such a process inevitably appears chaotic.

@NickTayNorfolk @AmarettoRory @Helen_Whately Pros: Independent regulation, new opportunities for global trade, control over borders. The cons are also obvious

@Anna15778 @AmarettoRory @Helen_Whately Pros?

If you make it harder to do business, there will be less business… And fewer stores obviously means fewer jobs too.

@topxalimo @LynelbL2033 @WorksBreaks @Mengsteab444 War certainly has a negative impact on the economy, but more than 30 years on, we must reflect on the internal factors behind the slow pace of development

@LynelbL2033 @WorksBreaks @Mengsteab444 30 years of war 4 a small country puts a lot of strain on the economy. 5 years of war in 1945 almost pushed the UK into bankruptcy. Either way Eritrea’s starting to grow while Ethiopia eats itself up then fakes population estimates. Uno ur country has digital blackouts 4 a reason

Ethiopia is the world’s most populous landlocked nation.

@m1tch241 @MikeTappTweets The mass exodus of British nationals is the real problem; high levels of immigration are putting pressure on housing and services. Although the figures have fallen, the scale remains significant

@MikeTappTweets Over 800,000 people came legally to the UK close to 700,000 left because of taxes and the economy. The Net figure has only gone down because of the number fleeing the country. These are facts from government websites. So why lie to us?

Don’t believe the lies from Reform. Facts 👇

@jeffmar9999 @stellacreasy I couldn’t agree more! The British people have had enough of these out-of-touch politicians. It’s time to listen to the public, rather than continuing to ruin the economy

@stellacreasy The UK people are fed up of being treated like second class citizens. Farage gets far worse treatment and she is tone deaf and the worst chancellor ever. So listen to the people instead, we are fed up with ministers being paid a fortune and wrecking the economy

Jenrick and Farage celebrating and encouraging someone repeatedly shouting and swearing at a stranger he disagrees with in public is all you need to know about their actual belief in free speech. Manners maketh the men indeed.

@AmarettoRory @NickTayNorfolk @Helen_Whately It is true that overall growth has outperformed that of the three continental European countries, though the service sector has made a greater contribution, whilst the manufacturing sector faces considerable pressure. The pros and cons of Brexit are still being assessed

@NickTayNorfolk @Helen_Whately UK exports, inflation adjusted, have increased since Brexit, despite the loss of frictionless trade. Also, the UK economy continues to grow faster than France, Germany or Italy.

@ChrisCorleoneX_ @GuntherEagleman @BarackObama Exactly. ‘Affordable housing’ became a trillion-dollar bubble that exploded in 2008. Frank lectured on reform while his apartment hosted a prostitution ring. Dodd-Frank just protected the big banks. Classic swamp move

Barney Frank was one of a kind. For more than three decades in Congress, he fought tirelessly for the people of Massachusetts, helped make housing more affordable, stood up for the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans, and helped pass one of the most sweeping financial reforms in history designed to protect consumers and prevent another financial crisis. Barney’s passion and wit were second to none, and our thoughts are with his family today.

@Trumpisap3d0 @GuyTalksFinance The mind-boggling logic of consumerism: does not spending money recklessly ruin the economy? So does that mean borrowing money every day just to eat and drink is what constitutes prosperity?

@GuyTalksFinance AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ECONOMY WHEN PEOPLE ARENT SPENDING MONEY AT RESTAURANTS? My god you people are the dumbest in the room, and you’re the only ones standing in it. You all seem to be in an economic bubble full of your own dumb shit. I’m so glad the next depression is soon.

You can literally buy all of this food at Costco for $120 and have 3 meals a day for two weeks. Save the money and pack your lunch.

@chrisp_intheory @harryh @DKThomp @JessicaBRiedl Historical correlation does not imply causation. The main cause of the recession following the Clinton surplus was the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes, which burst the dot-com bubble; it had nothing to do with the surplus itself

@harryh @DKThomp @JessicaBRiedl the government stopped supplying the base liquidity. When that private debt bubble burst in 2000-2001, the economy collapsed, forcing the government back into a deficit to rescue it.

New pod: NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA HOW TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE US DEFICIT Right now, everybody thinks someone deserves a tax cut. For the Trump administration, it's: rich people, seniors, and business owners. For Democrats, it's everybody except rich people. In this morning's CNBC interview, Jeff Bezos said nobody earning under $75 should pay taxes. Great, wonderful. Nobody should pay taxes. Understood. One problem with that: Nobody knows how to cut spending, either. Elon Musk and his team of 20something genius lads spent months spelunking through the US budget wrecking havoc and they managed to cut no more than ... 0.1% of federal outlays. One problem here is a massive gap between outsiders' confidence that deficit reduction is easy (just find the waste! it's right under that chair! go to the budget document and control-f for "fraud"! bingo!) and insider understanding that cutting $1 trillion in govt spending is a career-ending, and potentially party-destroying, risk. The US govt is, per the old economic joke, an insurance company with a standing army, where the vast majority of spending goes to health care payments, social security checks, and military ops/personnel/procurement. Meanwhile, America's annual deficit is skyrocketing toward $2 trillion, interest payments now rivaling total military spending, and even liberal and center-left economists are worrying that the U.S. is running out of fiscal space and something awfully freaky could happen if we hit a recession that causes tax revenue to plummet, automatic spending to increase, and the deficit to blow open. "American debt crisis" has been a boy-cries-wolf story for decades in American politics. But as @JustinWolfers tells me, the wolf is getting awfully close to the door. youtube.com/watch?v=OXKAfc…

@KennyZufall @Dboybruh Agreed! Jensen has confidently shot down the bubble theory with an $80 billion share buyback. As the cornerstone of AI infrastructure, NVDA is a solid long-term hold right through to 2030🚀

@Dboybruh Looks like Jensen is tired of bubble fear hitting the stock price 😂. NVDA's the hyperscaler to own until 2030. They're going to be one of the major drivers of the entire economy.

- double beat and buy back 🔥 what Jensen Huang is to the stock market right now $NVDA 📈🔥

@Krellhammer @Jim849529967812 @Emerfav86 @CryptoMikli When new industries emerge, old ones inevitably decline Before electricity was discovered, you were still using candles

@Anna15778 @Jim849529967812 @Emerfav86 @CryptoMikli The current form of A.I provides almost nothing for the average American. Your quality of life becomes statistically worse if a datacenter is built near your neighborhood, and job losses are hitting the economy like a hammer. The tech may stay, but it has to change.

Kevin O’Leary says Gen Z is financially cooked when people making $70K a year are spending $28 on lunch

@googoo4gaga6 @rayneview @FoodProfessor There are plenty of people like that

@Anna15778 @rayneview @FoodProfessor Some groups are underrepresented in property ownership so therefore property owners shouldn't garden, unless they are bigots.

BREAKING: Canada’s food inflation rate dropped to 3.5% in April. Food prices in stores rose 3.8% year-over-year, still a full percentage point above the general inflation rate. Food inflation has now outpaced overall inflation for more than a year — every month since March 2025.