Comment by Ivaylo Noyzi Tsvetkov:
Sometimes it's not that complicated. With the categorical policy in our country in the last decade, according to which, for the most part, more state means more "security" and of course, more votes from certain strata, we have long since strengthened ourselves up the ladder, which actually leads down, as the title of Bell Kaufman's novel says.
And this narrative that more state solves problems apparently sells well, especially among people with certain cognitive deficits. As well as among the expanding stratum of beneficiaries - mainly the "Chinese" army of officials, but not only - the narrative, including the media, "sexualizes" the thinking that relies on reflexes traceable to communism that "the state, mom, may be a little, but it's safe".
Loans to shut up hungry people
And immediately a problem - it has long been not "a little" at all. The political oligarchy realized perfectly well that the kind of generous state "catering" to the bureaucracy and especially the repressive system further entrenched it. And I'm not just talking about GERB and the types of "assembly lines", but also about Assen Vassilev himself as the Minister of Finance, who at one point decided to be a populist and distribute surpluses. Of course, his cannot be compared to the real furious populism of the last two years, when there were handouts in which there was not even a simple linear, let alone modal logic.
What do I mean? And this is not complicated, I will reduce it to the first level with an apology to the economists: in order to have something to pour generously into the beaks of state chickens that do not produce a product and added value, you have to take from somewhere.
From where? Obviously not from our own party and personal assets, so - we take loans. Instead of stimulating a healthy and reasonable model, namely to deregulate or at least not to interfere with business as a whole, which produces added economic value and is the engine of any market economy, our people prefer to buy influence and votes in absentia, expanding the distribution out of hand.
So that it doesn't happen like in Romania
Why is this not very okay, as Gen Z said in the square? It is obvious - if you spend debt and unspent money, you get a possible short-term effect, according to which more and more civil servants are able to lie on the beaches in Northern Greece, even if they take out consumer loans.
Why unspent? Very simply again - the official or the repressive body does not produce anything, respectively, all this is likely to lead us into an inflationary spiral. Imagine it as an incredible chalga banquet or party, where everything is there - singers sing, people order to fail, dancing on the tables; but someone has to pay the bill in the end, and it's not the current political leaders, who could at least warn that there is no free chalga.
Look at Romania, by the way, the best example - Romania, not Ecuador or some other distant country. They spent and spent populist money on state drones, threw napkins and ordered expensive things, and in the end they ended up with over 8% budget deficit and nearly 10% inflation on an annual basis.
Ergo, to finish on simple issues - I haven't talked about left and right for a long time - although it is obvious: if business doesn't come up with the money to give away to the state, this most often simply means that you are imperceptibly going into debt, even without knowing it. From there, the young people who stayed in Bulgaria will have to repay this extravagant spending with their own work and their taxes. And this against the backdrop of a special kind of "state capitalism", according to which the main big politicians and their state-business empires also turn out to be some of the main employers. This is the terrible problem in our country, which leads us to the aforementioned Romanian model.
The left, the right, Radev - who will "liberate" business?
And the left and the right? They have long since crossed over into some kind of meta-narrative for us, cultural scientists, while political scientists are wondering how to defend the model in which there is no left or right. I have not seen anyone born after 1994 really get excited about this dichotomy - millennials simply realize that even here there are opportunities despite the amoral oligarchic, which formally poses as right-wing and Euro-Atlantic, but is actually a Magurajian policy of ordinary fraud.
I forgot: there is also a systematic communication lie in favor of the many state, inspired by the conquered judiciary. The official media is trying to replace politics with only perfidious and flat coverage, and accordingly with a lack of serious questions.
And lastly: you now officially have "Orban from Temu" in the person of Radev, probably a double product of the Northeast and the Americans. That is, let me ask a rhetorical question - how do you see him as political understandings - will he "free" business from the oligarchic or will he pour even more into the state coffers? Don't answer me.