HolidayBlogging

Tag: Framework

  • 'Show me the money': EU's defence industry wants at least €100 billion after 2027

    The European defence industry has urged policymakers to allocate at least €100 billion to defence under the next long-term common budget (2028–34), emphasising that this is the ‘bare minimum’ required to strengthen the bloc’s military capabilities.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The €13 billion set aside for security and defence in the EU’s current long-term budget (2021–2027) is a drop in the ocean when it comes to protecting Europe from serious threats, the bloc’s defence, security, and space industry has warned. 
    The next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) should feature dedicated investment envelopes that “match the scale of the ambition and the urgency of the challenge,” according to a position paper by the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD), released on the eve of the European Commission’s proposal. 

    Industry leaders say that means allocating around €150 billion for both defence and non-military security across the next seven-year budget cycle, starting in 2028. 
    In recent months, the EU has urged member states to ramp up national defence efforts and has proposed an €800 billion plan to rearm. But so far, the pace of action has fallen short of expectations. 
    “Despite recent increases, Europe’s current rate of defence investment and procurement is inadequate to address the most extreme military contingencies,” the ASD warned in the paper. 
    With the US shifting focus to the Indo-Pacific and the threat of potential Russian aggression looming, industry figures argued that €100 billion for defence alone is “the bare minimum” needed to begin rebuilding Europe’s defence industrial base—especially after decades of underfunding that led to a €600 billion “defence deficit” during the so-called peace dividend era. 
    The precise breakdown of the EU’s next budget remains under wraps until Wednesday. But according to leaked documents seen by Euronews, the Commission is expected to propose a massive industrial fund that merges up to 14 existing budget lines, spanning defence, space, and technology programs. 

    This new instrument, the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), is set to include the European Defence Fund, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production, IRIS², InvestEU, the European Defence Industry Programme, EU4Health and LIFE, among others. 
    The ECF will also feature a European preference clause to promote sovereignty in critical areas like digital technologies, space, biotech, security, and defence. 
    In addition, the European Commission is weighing whether to merge its two largest budget items—the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the cohesion policy—into a single programming framework. Under this umbrella, the ECF would be used to support the bloc’s growing defence and security capabilities. 

    The European industry has also called on EU policymakers to allocate another €40 to €60 billion for space-related projects and around €23.5 billion for civil aviation. Otherwise, chronic underinvestment in aerospace, defence and security could result in weakened capabilities, delayed critical transitions and increased dependencies, the ASD claimed. 
    European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius told Euronews in a recent interview that the next long-term budget should include more funding for space initiatives to reduce reliance on the US and strengthen the EU’s strategic autonomy. 
    While he didn’t provide specific figures due to ongoing negotiations, Kubilius acknowledged that maintaining current space systems alone will cost more than the €17 billion currently allocated. 
    “If we do not allocate enough funding and fail to start developing these space projects, by 2035 we may find ourselves in a very unattractive situation,” he warned. 

  • Recession Reality: GDP Decline Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

    Recession Reality: GDP Decline Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

    What’s Up With the Downward Trend in GDP?

    When folks talk about a drop in GDP, they’re basically saying the economy’s balloons are popping. The big guns of the finance world—think economists and market watchers—haven’t stood still when it comes to this. A fall in Gross Domestic Product usually means the whole system is taking a breather, or worse, slumping.

    Why the Paddle Pops

    • Demand Drops In – There’s less appetite for goods and services. No one’s busy buying a new blender or subscribing to that streaming feud.
    • Private-Sector Crunch – Most of the dodge here comes from the private side. Businesses and consumers alike are tightening their belts.
    • Recession in the House – Economists label this whole bow to the economy a “recession.” It’s the classic shake‑down
      that follows a freight‑train of reduced consumption.

    A Quick Takeaway

    In plain fashion: when GDP takes a dip, it’s like the economy’s heartbeat slows. The root cause? Aggregate demand takes a hit—the folks who sign up for things in the market are dialing back.

    Bottom Line

    Remember the next time you hear “recession” in the news—think of it as the economy doing a quick, low‑energy stretch that many experts say is triggered by a sluggish private‑sector appetite.

    Why a Central Bank Should Give the Private Sector a Boost

    In today’s sluggish economy, many experts say it’s time for the central banker to step into the ring and give the private sector a real kick. Think of it as a pep‑talk that pulls the whole system out of its drowsy slump.

    What the Experts Suggest

    The secret sauce? Lowering interest rates while pumping up the flow of money. In plain English, the bank offers cheaper borrowing cost and more cash in the economy. This frees up businesses to drop a new product, hire a crew, or upgrade their machinery—old‑fashioned but effective!

    The Core Problem: Scarcity of Goods

    You can’t just pop an item out of thin air. Everything begins with nature’s raw material—coal, iron, timber, etc.—and then rolls through a long, multi‑step production chain. From extraction to forging tools to crafting consumer goods, each stage needs its own input and time. Thanks to the division of labor, a tidy lot of folks line up to do one of those stages.

    Who Does What?
    • Raw‑material miners – dig up the basics (coal, iron, etc.)
    • Tool and machine makers – turn those basics into gear and rigs
    • Consumer‑goods producers – use the gear to fashion the items people buy.

    Why Saving Matters

    Every stage needs a cushion. That’s where saving – the invisible button‑save button – comes in. Think of it as a subsistence fund. It’s the financial safety net that lets producers keep the wheels turning until their products hit the market, and then keeps the cycle going into the next stage. In short: no saving, no production.

    Capital Goods = Big Winners

    Even high‑tech gadgets and big machinery are scarce. Building them requires a hefty upfront expense and a bunch of sacrifices. The payoff? Once a few capital goods find their place in the market, the whole production engine becomes smoother—time, energy, and resources get a major squeeze.

    Bottom Line: Don’t Just Push Consumption

    It’s tempting to think that simply telling people to spend will lift GDP. Not so fast! Production comes before consumption. Without saving and building the right tools, you eat the furniture before you can actually live in it. Let the economy grow from the ground up, and the money will pile up from the top.

    What Is a Recession?

    Why Recessions Aren t About Weak GDP, But About Cleaning Up the Money‑Madness Mess

    Think of a recession not as a grand downturn in GDP, but as the great tidy‑up that comes when the central bank pulls the rug of loose money from a landscape that grew too wild. Those wild “bubble” activities that bloomed on cheap credits are suddenly left without a safety net, and voilà—an economic bust.

    What Gets Dumped? The Non‑Productive Bubble Stuff

    • The easy‑cash era creates “exchange‑nothing‑for‑something” trades, siphoning savings away from solid, real‑world jobs.
    • Over time, this misdirects effort into projects that don’t actually build wealth.
    • When the bank tightens its stance, dollars stop flowing into those bubble projects, and they crumble.

    The Tug‑of‑War Between Money & Real Production

    Picture the economy as a tug‑rope: on one side, you’ve got reckless spending; on the other, the solid pull of real capital production. When the peripheral side starts pulling too hard (thanks to inflation‑fuelled spending), the whole system gets pulled away from its real core.

    Recessions kick in when the central bank pulls back on that peripheral force. Ironically, that pull‑back helps the real side by forcing savings to stop chasing bubbles and return to genuine production.

    Do We Really Need Consistent Consumer Raves?

    • Many think that if people keep buying, the economy will stay shiny.
    • But the ability to consume is a direct child of how much you can actually produce in the first place.
    • In the words of James Mill: “A nation’s power to buy matches the amount of goods it makes. More output expands the market, the buying power, and the actual purchases.”

    Thus, the only real way to keep demand high is to boost production capacity. That means building more capital goods, which requires savings, not more loose money or inflation‑fed spending.

    The Takeaway: Recession as a Return to Reality

    A recession isn’t a failure of the economy’s core strength; it’s a realignment that trims away the space‑filled bubbles left by years of lax monetary policy. The good news? It safeguards the long‑term wealth‑creating engines and, in any market, is a chance for the infrastructure that truly counts to get its due attention.

    GDP and the Money Supply

    When the Bank of Money Rides the Roller‑Coaster

    Most pundits watch the GDP like it’s the scoreboard in a high‑stakes bar‑bet. Since GDP is measured in cash, any bump in the money supply usually sends the figure rising or falling. The paradox? Big‑mouth stimulus plans that try to keep recession from crashing the party usually backfire.

    Bubble‑Inducing Party Tricks

    • New bubbles born: The more cash we hand out, the more folks taste the sweet of risk‑taking. They start buying properties, tech stocks, and even that pretentious “gold‑stamped” coffee mug—whatever the market’s calling the next hot trend.
    • Existing bubbles get a boost: Real estate fires, venture‑capital fireworks—investors feel the boom, fueling another cycle of over‑valuation.

    When Wealth Pro‑ducers Get a Grip

    If entrepreneurs and investors can keep throwing in savings—like a steady stream of water to a campfire—the central bank’s “pump‑up” policies look “successful”. The GDP keeps climbing, inflation stays sticky but not explosively so.

    Slide into the Economic Pit

    But once those savers burn out, the heat of the economy starts cooling. The world of predictions warns that no amount of expansionary monetary policy can rescue the slide—it just fattens the slump. Think of it as trying to stop a runaway fidget spinner with a handful of rubber bands: it only slows it down, no better.

    Bottom line: more pocket money doesn’t always mean a brighter economy. In fact, it can make the whole circus trickier to juggle.

    Conclusion

    Redefining Recession – it’s not just about GDP

    Think of a recession like the unwinding of a balloon. It’s not really a tale of two quarterly dips in GDP; it’s more about the burst of a bubble that grew when the central bank kept the money supply loose. The real shock hits once the bank pulls back the inflating hand, because you can’t let that policy go on forever or you’ll crash the whole economic playground.

    What really matters for a healthy economy

    • Strong economic data is nice, but it’s secondary to real market freedom.
    • Constant intervention by banks or governments in markets is a money‑sack thriller—they distort price signals and choke innovation.
    • True strength exists when markets operate unshackled from too‑tight monetary meddling.

    Got an extra paycheck? Why not let it sit in a solid savings account?

    Your money could earn a respectable 4.66% APY at Axos Bank. No fluff, no hidden fees—just a simple, reliable way to keep your cash growing.

    Open a new account today and watch your sav‑mony work for you.

    arrowCould you please share the article that you’d like me to rewrite?

  • Scholars & Schemers: The Left’s Flawed Assault on Higher Learning*

    Scholars & Schemers: The Left’s Flawed Assault on Higher Learning*

    How the Left Is Taking Over Campus

    According to a recent piece by William Anderson of The Mises Institute, the trend of left‑leaning faculty, students, and administrators sweeping U.S. higher education is no mistake—it’s a hard‑to‑ignore reality.

    What’s Really Happening?

    • Faculty hire shifts: More professors are aligning with progressive agendas, reshaping curricula and classroom conversations.
    • Student activism: A growing number of students champion causes that echo leftist ideals, driving campus culture toward progressive politics.
    • Administration moves: University leaders are increasingly favoring policies that support diversity, equity, and inclusion, aligning with leftist goals.

    Historical Context

    Over the past decade, colleges and universities have seen a dramatic transformation. The shift isn’t a recent invention—it’s part of a longer trend that started over the last 50 years, when institutions began to lean more toward liberal social values.

    The Bottom Line

    While critics from the right call it a “capture,” the evidence shows that leftist politics have systematically reshaped academia. Whether that’s good, bad, or somewhere in between, it’s clearly a story worth paying attention to.

    Where Did It All Go Wrong?

    When you think of the last 50 years of college life, you’ll probably remember a castle of “liberal” professors—yes, that’s a term that used to mean the same thing as “combos of chess, economics, and a splash of optimism.” Most of those teachers, blessing the Democratic Party, were known for their scholarly passions, not for a courtroom drama with a political score. In fact, most of my professors at the University of Tennessee fumbled their own cross‑overs, keeping the syllabus strictly academic, even while the world around us was drowning in Watergate.

    Politics: Between the Lines, Not the Notes

    • Graduate the 1970s as a journalism major, among the only “leaning” class, yet no lecture ever smelled of merchandised ideology.
    • Most teachers carried a democratic mindset but hardly bent to influence a student’s personal political heart.
    • The campus language had a little makeover: freshmen became “freshpersons,” for chair transformed into “chairperson.” A little cultural sleight‑of‑hand that nobody thought vocally harmful.

    Shift the Conversation—And the Curriculum

    Fast‑forward to the last decade: the academic playground exploded with a rain of leftist thought that seared every major like a flame. The infection is so prolific now that it’s almost impossible to find every area immune to the coral bleaching of ideological indoctrination. Even if a new generation were to reverse the trend, it will still take decades before the effects are felt have vanished.

    One Thing Blasts the Past:

    While we previously believed professors kept doctrines murky, this isn’t entirely accurate. The buzz has spiraled into an unstoppable disaster where our academic experience is essentially politicized, and you can almost see a campus expo advertising “Scholarly Integrity.”

    To wrap it up: The college sphere, once a place of intellectual rigor, is now running wide open to political narratives. Leaving your superstitious teenage sophomore’s imagination, it’s almost impossible to find any major wise enough to nuance or tame.

    Alleged Racism in Mathematics

    Math, or the Great Equalizer? (And the Not-So-Equal Results)

    Do you remember the first time you tried to solve a derivative or run a quick regression in a spreadsheet? If you’ve gone through a few tiers of calculus or some high‑school statistics, you probably felt that maths was neutral—just numbers, y’all. But apparently, the academic world has discovered a darker side: math might be a little racist.

    Where’s the Bias Coming From?

    Most critics point to the history of blackboards and textbooks, focusing on who actually shaped the syllabus. The main gripe? Racial minorities often score lower on standardized math tests. That tells us the way math is taught could be biased or even outright racist.

    Enter the Politics of Education

    • Left‑wing influence in colleges & school boards has paved the way for a new curriculum.
    • Seattle, for instance, is pushing a math program that will confront students with the fact that “Western Math” was historically a tool of power.
    • Students will learn: Western Math can reinforce oppression, strip opportunities, and deny people of color the knowledge they’ve earned.
    A Bold Experiment

    According to the Seattle plan, the math curriculum will challenge the assumption that numbers are neutral. It’ll ask: Do the methods we use actually limit economic or social mobility for folks already on the wrong side of the scale? Not just a math class; it’s a philosophical awakening.

    Should We Embrace or Reject It?

    Some say it’s a great step toward equity, while others are scratching their heads. Either way, the conversation is growing louder. The takeaway? Math is no longer just about squares and curves; it’s a social tool, too.

    The Left Declares that Science, Too, Is Racist

    Science Rebooted: Is It All About Bias and Misplaced Pride?

    Imagine you’re walking through a corridor full of textbooks and you hit a wall of old, dusty ideas that feel like they were built by a very selective group of people. That’s the vibe many are getting when they read recent headlines claiming that science itself may be steeped in racism.

    The “Math is Racist” Spark

    It all starts with a provocative claim: mathematics appears to be racist because its equations have historically been used to justify prejudice. Fast forward to the modern era, and the conversation jumps: “If math’s got this problem, science—naturally a sibling—must have it too.”

    From Eugenics to Modern Bias

    In the 20th century, some progressives lobbied to brand science as the ally of eugenics. That was a revelation of pseudo-science masquerading as “progress.” Yet the movement that fought against these pseudo-sciences still clings to the same progressive narrative, oblivious to its own irony.

    Nature’s Bold Editorial

    Late last year, the scientific journal Nature put its foot down and called science a “colonialist” and, thus, racist institution. Here’s what the editorial said:

    • “We recognize that Nature is one of the white institutions that is responsible for bias in research and scholarship.”
    • “The enterprise of science has been—and remains—complicit in systemic racism. It must strive harder to correct those injustices and amplify marginalized voices.”

    That was a call to action, not a smear campaign. The intent? Push scientists out of their comfy offices and into a world that’s representative and diverse.

    What Did They Really Want?

    We’re not dealing with a call to abandon all scientific findings. The editors were saying that: when the people doing the research are biased, the conclusions get skewed. The real message is that the science community must open its doors wider and turn its focus to more voices in the field.

    Smithsonian’s Take

    Gold standard Smithsonian adds another layer to the debate. They’re claiming that even everyday concepts—being on time, working hard, and thinking ahead—have the same colonial roots. Even the scientific method’s pillars—linear thinking and cause-and-effects—carry hidden prejudices.

    It sounds like something out of a sci‑fi dystopia, but the point is simple: science can’t separate itself from its creators’ biases.

    Why This Matters

    • We want to keep chasing the half‑truth about the universe.
    • But we also want the science building to be populated by all the minds in the world—not just a handful.
    • That means welcoming fresh perspectives, rethinking foundational assumptions, and openly acknowledging past flaws.

    So, next time you see “race” pop up in a science headline, ask yourself: is it a warning or a rallying cry? The key takeaway? Justice, diversity, and genuine progress aren’t just nice‑to‑have; they are essential foundations for any discovery that hopes to keep our world moving forward.

    How Did It Come to This?

    Academic Academia’s “Shadow” — A Rough‑and‑Real Look

    Only a bit‑of‑the‑sci‑junkie vibe or a campus dean who loves golden‑rules can truly own the claim that “cause‑and‑effect thinking” is a racism‑red flag and that a person’s gender is a random “birth tag”. I’ve chased the drama of the infamous Duke Lacrosse affair, saw how a handful of faculty swayed the narrative, and realized the same nonsense permeates universities worldwide.

    From Duke to the Broader Picture

    • During the “Duke Lacrosse” uproar, a professor named Karla Holloway implied that the accused players’ guilt was irrelevant—just “racism” or politics mattered.
    • Consequent backlash made the whole situation feel like a social construction fest—all truth stripped away.
    • Seeing this, I started pulling back on what “evidence” really means in academic circles.

    How We “Lost” the Search for Truth

    The story goes back to the 1930s when Italian communist Antonio Gramsci observed that the Western academia, especially Christian institutions, wouldn’t let a violent revolution start like it did in Russia.

    Gramsci said we needed a “war of position” instead of a war of movement—this means infiltrating those pillars of civilization, not swinging swords.

    • Think about churches, charities, media, schools and such.
    • Goal: turn them into grounds for spreading the new ideology.

    As the 1970s rolled in, universities began launching “women’s studies” programs. It was a make‑over of the old disciplines (English, History, Economics) into what people later dubbed “identity studies.” Those new departments turned into breeding grounds for radical faculty, many of whom had weak publication credentials but who still Shaped a campus agenda geared hard‑to‑speak political narratives.

    Scholars vs. Schemers

    Above all, the “scholars”—those who love the true grit of research, teaching, and service—contrast sharply with “schemers” who wield committee powers to push syllabi that scream “anti‑racism” or “preferred pronouns.”

    • Scholars come for knowledge; they write white‑board lessons and carry out scientific talks.
    • Schemers want every lecture to be a platform for activism—assignments, grading, all set to a propaganda beat.

    At one of my former schools, the English department declared that marking a grammar error in a Black student’s essay was “racist” because it allegedly reinforced a racist structure. This wasn’t about easing the student’s workload; it was saying that English itself is a tool of bigotry.

    When faculty tried to voice dissent, they quickly got social‑justice mobs on social media. Take the Duke incident: professors who spoke against the pre‑judgment rush were met with angry crowds calling them backstabbers.

    The Future of Higher Education

    Either way, the undercurrent is clear: Scholars are fading, Schemers are rising, and the academic lattice is turning into a political playground. If this trend ends up, we might end up with only a handful of true scholars in the U.S. universities—plenty of stories, few facts.

    It’s time the campus cafeteria stopped ranting about “social constructs” and starts serving up the actual facts.