4 posts shown.
I’ve been thinking lately about how much fans lean into the "fresh start" narrative whenever a team undergoes a massive overhaul. It’s the classic cycle: a few big names leave, the squad is basically rebuilt from scratch, and everyone starts talking about "potential" and "new energy." It sounds great on paper, but honestly, it usually just feels like a recipe for chaos.
I remember watching a team a few years back that went through the exact same thing. They lost their backbone—the guys who actually knew how to win—and replaced them with a bunch of unproven talent. For the first month, it was all hype, but once the season actually got physical and the pressure mounted, that lack of continuity bit them hard. You can't just replace experience with "excitement" and expect the same results.
Do you think a complete squad turnover actually helps a team reset, or is it usually just a sign of instability?
Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.
But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.
True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.
But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.
Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.
I honestly don't expect any massive exodus here. I mean, anyone who actually wants to pack up and leave can pretty much do it whenever they feel like it today; sure, it might be a little more of a hassle and
maybe a bit more complicated, but nothing is impossible, right? Personally, I'm thinking we'll probably just see a tiny trickle, maybe something similar to what happened in
Canada, so basically just a minimal amount of people moving on.
Not paying suppliers on time, or dealing with those totally bizarre 180-day payment terms
is basically just a weird way of saying you're getting a discount for paying later instead of just paying upfront at the lower rate. Honestly, for the health of the whole economy
it would probably be way better if everyone just paid immediately at those lower prices rather than all this nonsense
where dragging your feet somehow counts as a little 5% discount or whatever.