Posts

I’ve been thinking about what an “ideal state” might look like. Not in a political sense. But in how it actually functions. And I realised something: Maybe the real question isn’t what kind of system we build, but what kind of people we raise within it. What if education didn’t just transfer knowledge, but actually prepared us for life? – how to nourish ourselves – how to move in a way that our bodies still work at 40, 50, 60 or beyond – how to manage stress – how to cook for ourselves – how to manage our finances (and yes, our car as well) – how to communicate and argue our point – how to look after our mental health – how to work in a team – how to solve problems – how to learn how to learn ...

They fail because we end up debating narratives — while losing sight of the actual problems. ⸻ Looking at public discourse in Hungary recently, I noticed a recurring pattern: The conversation often centres around a single question: Is a particular person fit to lead the country? This is, almost always, an emotional question. It’s about impressions, personalities and personal preference — rather than outcomes. But if politics is ultimately about how a society functions, then perhaps we should be asking a different question: ...

I hear this phrase often. And sometimes I say it myself. But it’s started to bother me. Because what actually is “common sense”? Has it really disappeared? Or are we just looking for it in the wrong place? ⸻ Over the past while, I’ve been thinking about why xenophobia, withdrawal, and “us and them” thinking are so strong here — and in many other countries too. If you hate everyone else, you lose the ability to learn from them. ...

This series is not economic history. It’s an observation of how systems treat people. ⸻ What did it respond to? Neoliberalism responded to the crisis of the welfare state. To overburdened budgets, slowing growth, intensifying global competition. To the realisation that previous promises no longer fit unchanged into a transformed economic environment. It promised efficiency where previously there had been security. ⸻ What did it reward? Competitiveness. Flexibility. Self-reliance. Those who adapted quickly, who could manage themselves, who took on risk, gained advantage. ...

This series is not economic history. It’s an observation of how systems treat people. ⸻ What did it respond to? Industrial capitalism responded to scarcity. To the fact that individual, artisan production could not meet growing societal needs. It promised mass production where only individual output had existed before. ⸻ What did it reward? Efficiency. Discipline. Repeatability. Those who could keep the pace and fit into the rhythm of the machine received a livelihood. ...

This series is not economic history. It’s an observation of how systems treat people. ⸻ What did it respond to? The welfare state responded to the risks of industrial capitalism. Accident. Illness. Unemployment. To the fact that individual life had become increasingly unpredictable. It promised collective insurance where previously all risk had fallen on the individual. ⸻ What did it reward? Work. Participation. Contribution. Those who worked received not just wages, but security too. ...

I was genuinely pleased. We’d found the optimal settings for the solar-battery system: maximum financial efficiency, whilst preserving battery lifespan. It felt good. Not “maxed out”, not “pushed to the limit”, but intelligently fine-tuned. Once we had that, sharing it felt natural. First, just the experience. Then it occurred to me that it might concretely benefit someone else. And that’s when something small, but important, happened. I thought I’d pass on not just the result, but the thought process as well. ...

This series is not economic history. It’s an observation of how systems treat people. ⸻ 1) What did it respond to? Early capitalism responded to feudal rigidity. To fixed roles, birth-defined life paths, and frozen social structures. It promised space where there had only been position. ⸻ 2) What did it reward? Enterprise. Risk-taking. Movement and adaptability. If you were willing to step out of place and carry uncertainty, opportunity appeared. ⸻ 3) What did it punish? ...

This series is not economic history. It’s an observation of how systems treat people. ⸻ What did it respond to? Feudalism responded to chaos. To post-Roman instability, the lack of a monopoly on violence, and unpredictable protection. It promised order where there had been none. ⸻ What did it reward? Loyalty. Role adherence. Staying in place. If you knew your position and didn’t question too much, you gained safety. ⸻ What did it punish? Mobility. Deviation. Independence. ...

There’s a recurring insight I keep returning to. We often hear that people who grow up in dysfunctional environments replicate those patterns in adulthood — not because they want to, but because it’s familiar. It became their “normal”. There’s truth in this. But it’s incomplete. ⸻ Repetition is one path to recognition. But not the only one. The same realisation can arrive through: • Physical movement • Stillness and silence • Slowing down • Cognitive reframing ...