Tag Archives: Tax

by | January 28, 2026 · 6:23 am

This Is Not a Global Recovery. It’s an American One

When we look at GDP growth, one thing becomes very clear: the United States is in a league of its own. With growth at 4.4 percent, the U.S. economy is running far ahead of other major economies.

India comes in second — but at less than half the U.S. rate. China, once the global engine of growth, is now barely above one percent. Europe paints a much weaker picture: the euro area, France, and the UK are hovering near stagnation. Italy does a bit better, but still far behind the U.S.

The takeaway is simple: global growth is no longer evenly distributed. The world is increasingly dependent on one dominant economic engine — the United States.

Trumponomics, Taxes, and Tariffs

This dominance is not accidental. Trumponomics — including tax cuts, deregulation, and strategic trade measures — has been designed to strengthen domestic growth. Lower taxes have incentivized investment, increased consumption, and created a multiplier effect across multiple sectors. Simply put: lower taxes mean more growth.

Tariffs have also contributed, protecting key industries and encouraging reshoring. While not the main driver of GDP growth, they amplify the effect of pro-growth policies, keeping production and capital inside the United States.

Crypto and Blockchain: America’s Catalyst

Digital infrastructure, crypto, and blockchain have emerged as powerful catalysts for U.S. economic dominance. While crypto-related activity still represents only a small fraction of U.S. GDP today, it facilitates faster capital flows, scalable services, and innovative financial systems.

Blockchain doesn’t drive the economy on its own — but it reinforces American economic advantage and positions the U.S. to maintain its lead as digital systems expand.

Blockchains are the future, not just for finance, but for the infrastructure of value itself. And America is at the forefront.

Innovation vs. Bureaucracy

A key driver behind continued U.S. economic growth is innovation—particularly in advanced manufacturing and energy technology. Companies like Tesla, led by Elon Musk, have played a pioneering role by pushing battery technology to a new level, giving the U.S. a clear competitive advantage in electric vehicles and energy storage.

In contrast, Europe—and Germany in particular—has been slowed by regulatory complexity and bureaucratic inertia. While innovation in the U.S. is often enabled by speed, scale, and risk-taking, European industry must navigate dense layers of regulation, approval processes, and political compromise.

For Germany, whose economy is deeply tied to the automotive sector, this loss of momentum has broader consequences. And as Germany remains the economic locomotive of the EU, the effects of slower innovation are amplified across Europe—raising the question of whether regulation has begun to outweigh competitiveness.

One Engine, Many Passengers

Put it all together: Trumponomics, smart policy, tariffs, and innovative digital infrastructure. The result? America continues to dominate while Europe struggles with stagnation, and China slows. Emerging markets chase momentum.

Growth today in the United States comes not from soil or oil alone, but from systems designed to turn value into profit. Lower taxes, strategic policy, and innovation create a self-reinforcing cycle — one that keeps the U.S. in the driver’s seat.

Oil once defined power. Today, code, capital, and blockchain define it. And in that world, the United States still owns the refinery.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 27, 2026 · 9:18 am

When State Overreach Meets Economic Reality: Lessons from Venezuela to Scandinavia

Recently, reports have emerged that former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured by the Trump administration. While controversial from an international law perspective, this event highlights a deeper truth: the people of Venezuela were dissatisfied with their leadership, and Maduro’s governance clearly failed to meet the country’s needs.

Venezuela was once one of the richest countries in Latin America, largely due to its oil wealth. In the mid-20th century, Venezuela enjoyed high per capita income, robust infrastructure, and a thriving economy. But over time, the state increasingly intervened in the economy. Hugo Chávez and later Maduro implemented policies that undermined private enterprise, replaced skilled professionals in the oil industry with political appointees, and took control of private businesses.

The result was a collapse in production, hyperinflation, and widespread shortages. Here we see the central lesson: state overreach and mismanagement can destroy even the richest economies if it replaces incentive-driven entrepreneurship with central planning.

A striking historical parallel can be found in Sweden before 1990. Sweden was among the wealthiest countries in the world, but extreme taxes and heavy regulation prompted many successful entrepreneurs, like Ingvar Kamprad of IKEA and H&M’s founders, to relocate abroad. The country faced stagnant productivity and capital flight. By the early 1990s, Sweden was forced to liberalize its economy—cutting taxes, promoting competition, and allowing private enterprise to flourish again. Today, Sweden thrives because it balanced state welfare with market freedom.

This situation is not unique to Sweden. Norway now faces a similar challenge, as many wealthy individuals relocate to countries like Switzerland, seeking lower taxes and more favorable conditions for capital and innovation. The lesson is clear: overburdening taxes and excessive state control can drive away the very people and resources that sustain growth.

Beyond Scandinavia, China illustrates a different form of state intervention. While nominally communist, China has prospered because it maintained market incentives and became the “factory of the world.” Similarly, East Germany under the Cold War lacked both natural resources and market-driven productivity. Even with state support from the Soviet Union, the system could not generate sustainable wealth. Had East Germany possessed major natural resources or been a manufacturing powerhouse, it might have prolonged stability, but the lack of institutional and economic freedom would still have limited growth.

The pattern is consistent across history: states cannot create wealth—only individuals and businesses can. The state can protect property, enforce contracts, and provide social safety nets, but replacing entrepreneurship and market signals with centralized control often leads to stagnation, collapse, or both. A striking modern example is Spotify, a private, market-driven company founded in 2006.

By 2024, Spotify generated over €15.6 billion in revenue and reached profitability for the first time, with more than 675 million active users worldwide. Impressively, Spotify’s market capitalization has topped €100 billion — rivaling the valuation of Equinor, Norway’s state-owned energy giant. This contrast highlights a central economic truth: value creation tends to emerge where innovation and market forces are free to operate, not solely where the state dominates. Sweden’s reform after 1990, China’s pragmatic blend of central authority and market incentives, and Venezuela’s tragedy all confirm this principle.

As the world grapples with economic uncertainty, demographic changes, and resource limitations, the key takeaway is simple: growth and innovation thrive when incentives are clear, markets function, and the state sets the rules rather than dictates the outcomes. Heavy-handed state intervention may appear morally satisfying, but history demonstrates that it usually comes at the cost of long-term prosperity.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | November 11, 2025 · 4:52 pm

The cost of living and the blame game

People are angry, and that’s why they voted for Mamdani as the next Mayor of New York.
People are sick and tired of struggling to make ends meet. In his victory speech, Mamdani said:

“We choose hope over tyranny. Hope over big money and small ideas. Hope over despair. Tonight, we have stepped out from the old into the new.”

His supporters are already marching in the streets, saying they don’t want Trump as a king or a dictator.

Hmm… I think I’ve heard this before.

More than two thousand years ago, in Rome, another man was accused of wanting to be king.
His name was Julius Caesar.

A group of Roman senators assassinated Caesar out of fear that his growing power and titles, especially dictator for life, would destroy the Roman Republic.
They claimed they were saving democracy, but their actions plunged Rome into chaos and civil war.

It was a betrayal that changed history, and a reminder of how fear, power, and instability often go hand in hand.

History Repeats Itself

Fast forward to France, 1848. The people were exhausted. Food prices were soaring, unemployment was rising, and inequality had reached unbearable levels.
King Louis Philippe I, once known as the Citizen King, had promised a fairer, more modern France. But over time, his government became detached from ordinary people’s struggles.

One of the main sources of anger was the tax system. The poor and working class bore a heavy burden through indirect taxes on essentials like food, salt, and fuel, while wealthy landowners and property owners paid relatively little. Voting rights were also tied to property ownership, meaning most citizens had no political voice. When food prices spiked in the late 1840s, ordinary people were paying high taxes on top of already expensive necessities. Economic frustration reached a tipping point.

People in New York voted for Mamdani, who wants to raise taxes and, at the same time, give people fast and free buses. How is that going to be?

When protests erupted in February 1848, the king tried to silence them. Instead, the anger exploded.
Barricades filled the streets of Paris, and after just a few bloody days, Louis Philippe abdicated the throne and fled to England in disguise.

The monarchy collapsed. The Second Republic was born.
But what came next? A new leader. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of Napoleon I, rose to power, promising to restore stability and hope. Within four years, he declared himself Emperor.

Sound familiar?

It’s the same old story: people rise up against a system they believe is unjust, only to end up under a new one that looks strangely similar.
Each era has its slogans: “liberty,” “hope,” “change,” “the people’s revolution”, yet the same problems remain. Prices go up. Ordinary citizens struggle. The rich adapt and survive.

Take a look at France today with its Yellow Vest protesters. People are struggling with their cost of living. I wrote an article about that for the first time, many years ago. And who is to blame now? The King? Napoleon? No, it`s Macron.

So, Why Are Prices Rising Again?

The cost of living has become the defining issue of our time. Food, housing, and energy prices are rising faster than wages. Families feel squeezed, not just in New York or Paris, but across the Western world.

But who is to blame?

It’s tempting to point the finger at politicians, corporations, or billionaires. Yet the truth is more complex. The problem isn’t one person. It’s the system itself.

A mix of factors drives today’s inflation:

  • Global supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and wars.
  • Energy shocks as the world shifts away from fossil fuels.
  • Corporate pricing power in markets where competition has shrunk.
  • Decades of easy money and debt have inflated asset prices but left wages behind.

Governments print money to stimulate the economy, corporations raise prices to protect profits, and central banks hike interest rates to cool inflation, all while ordinary people pay the price.

It’s a cycle that keeps repeating, no matter the century. In ancient Rome, it was grain shortages. In 1848, in France, it was bread and taxes. Today, it’s rent and electricity.

The Real Lesson

Historically, when people struggle, they often look for someone to blame, such as a king, a tyrant, or a president. Get rid of Trump, and everything will be fine. Get rid of Macron, and the sun will shine. They think removing the person will fix the system. But as history shows us, that rarely works.

Trump isn’t the cause of America’s problems. He’s a symptom of them.
Just as Caesar wasn’t the reason Rome was collapsing, but rather the outcome of deep divisions and economic inequality that had built up for years.

When the cost of living becomes unbearable, people revolt. Sometimes at the ballot box, sometimes in the streets.

But unless we learn from history, each “revolution” just sets the stage for the next crisis.

In the end, it’s not about kings or dictators. It’s about systems.
And if we don’t fix the system, the anger, fear, and struggle will continue. Just as it has for more than 2,000 years.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | October 20, 2022 · 11:30 am

PM Liz Truss cannot change the UK`s low growth and resigned after 44 days in office

PM Liz Truss came in as a new leader in the UK and said she will always act in the national interest. “Growing the economy remains our mission, ensuring people can get good jobs, new businesses can flourish and families can afford an even better life,” she tweeted a few days ago.

Liz Truss and the Conservative Party stand for low taxes, free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government spending and government debt. Social conservatives see traditional social values, often rooted in familial, and religion.

PM Liz Truss cannot do what she was planning to do, and therefore she and her party had a U-turn and walked away from their agenda. Instead, we see the opposite of what she stands for, but now under Jeremy Hunt.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The opposite isn`t funny at all. Just ask people in Greece, and we know what they have gone thru. Austerity seems to be the next step in the UK. It also happened under PM David Cameron in 2009.

The term «age of austerity», which had previously been used to describe the years immediately following World War II, was popularised by Conservative Pary leader David Cameron.

High inflation, high taxation, and the removal of temporary COVID-era support measures culminated in a cost-of-living crisis late last year. Policies during late 2021 were referred to as the second era of austerity by some commentators.

The second austerity period took place during the premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the austerity program included reductions in welfare spending, the cancellation of school building programs, reductions in local government funding, and an increase in VAT.

Spending on the police, courts, and prisons was also reduced. A number of quangos were abolished, merged, or reduced as a result of the 2010 UK quango reforms.

Researchers have linked budget cuts and sanctions against benefit claimants to the increasing use of food banks. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017.

The UK`s government austerity program is a fiscal policy adopted in the early 21st century following the Great Recession. It started last year when the cost of the living crisis started.

The government claimed that it was a deficit reduction program consisting of sustained reductions in public spending and tax rises, intended to reduce the government budget deficit and the role of the welfare state in the UK.

Some observers accept this claim, but scholars have suggested that in fact its primary, largely unstated, aim, like most austerity policies, was to restore the rate of profit.

The Conservative government claimed that the National Health Service and education have been “ringfenced” and protected from direct spending cuts, but between 2010 and 2019 more than £30 billion in spending reductions have been made to welfare payments, housing subsidies, and social services.

The effects of United Kingdom austerity policies have proved controversial and the policies have received criticism from a variety of politicians and economists. Anti-austerity movements have been formed among citizens more generally.

This makes it very difficult for Liz Truss to continue as PM, and therefore, she resigned today.

In her speech today, she said that she was elected to change the UK`s low growth. Her vision was low taxes to make a high-growth economy take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit. But, she cannot deliver the mandate on which she was elected by the Conservative Party.

There will be a leadership election next week. This will ensure that they will remain on the path to deliver the fiscal plans, and maintain the UK`s stable economy, and national security. Liz Truss will remain as PM until a successor has been chosen.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | October 17, 2022 · 6:38 pm

It will be a deeper UK recession after the tax U-turn

Boris Johnson is out because he went too much on the left side. PM Liz Truss came in, but she`s also in trouble because Jeremy Hunt didn`t like her tax cuts. Farage believes he`s a globalist asset. Hunt is reversing most of PM`s flagship «mini-budget» tax cuts.

Jeremy Hunt was beaten by Boris Johnson in 2019. Hunt is also the man who was knocked out in the first round of the leadership contest this year. According to Farage, Hunt is not just a Chancellor. He`s running the country. He believes it`s a globalist coup.

Photo by vectors icon on Pexels.com

Joe Biden like this a lot. He`s so delighted. The IMF, OECD, BOE, the treasury, and the Chancellor of Germany are all over the moon. They all want a bigger state, with more significant taxes, and that was the sin of what was proposed by Kwaseng. He wanted people to keep more of their own money, and perhaps in time reduce the size of the state.

The conservative party stands for lower taxes. Like the conservative party in the United States. It`s their main goal. Their agenda. Furthermore, they stand for individual freedom, limited government, peace through strength, and free markets to name a few.

This is a historic moment. I have never seen something like this before. What a mess. Political chaos. The United Kingdom is in trouble. Economically, but also socially. It will take some time to get out of this mess.

Hunt wants people to pay more taxes because he wants a bigger government. He wants small businesses to pay more tax, and they have declared war on the self-employed, according to Farage. Taxes on small companies will rise significantly. In addition, there will be a major rise in corporation taxes and dividend taxes.

Wall Street bank, Goldman Sachs came out with a note on Sunday, and they see a deeper UK recession after the tax U-turn.

Goldman Sachs downgraded Britain`s outlook, and revised its 2023 economic output forecast to a 1% contraction from an earlier forecast for a 0,4% output drop, with core inflation seen at 3,1% at the end of 2023, down from 3,3% previously.

«Folding in weaker growth momentum, significantly tighter financial conditions, and the higher corporation tax from next April, we downgrade our UK growth outlook further and now expect a more significantly recession,» Goldman analysts led by Sven Jari Stehn said in a note dated Sunday.

«The persistence of core inflation and the continued tightness in the labor market suggests that the BoE still needs to take more monetary policy into significantly contractionary territory,» Goldman analysts wrote.

«That said, following PM Truss`s policy reversal we think there is less pressure for the BoE to act aggressively in the coming meetings,» they added.

Experts believe Liz Truss will be out as Prime Minister within weeks. So, this is how a democracy is working? Who voted for Hunt with his left-wing policy?

The statement that was made by Hunt earlier today is just in line with the leftist Labor party. It seems like the Tory party is dead. So, what`s the point of a conservative right-wing party at all?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,