Search

The author wrote that fulfilling Musk's forecast would require global GDP to grow by over 12 percent annually for six years. He added that if billions of robots could only be purchased by wealthy countries, OECD countries would have to record growth of 20 percent year after year. He asked whether such a vision signifies madness or brainwashing. #PKB #gospodarka #technologia #PL #OECD (translated)

The October electoral forecast from Onet indicates that the Civic Coalition is gaining 31.3% support, giving it an advantage over PiS, which is recording a drop to 20.6%, and the overall division of seats in the Sejm shows that the ruling coalition could count on 207 seats, while the right-wing camp could secure 253 mandates. #Polska #wybory #KO (translated)

The International Monetary Fund warns that global public debt is approaching a record level, predicting that it could reach 100% of global GDP by 2030, with Romania expected to exceed 60% of GDP this year due to rising expenditures and higher borrowing costs. #DatoriePublică #FMI #EconomiaRomâniei (translated)

The author of the entry accused Bogucki, head of Nawrocki's office, of re-publishing a fragment of Nawrocki's speech from Stargard on October 2nd on October 6th. He pointed out that the day before, Nawrocki had said in his message that he did not want "an ongoing political war," and the following day blamed Donald Tusk's government for public finance problems and stated that the government was indebting Poles by 900 million zł daily, while every day "2000 apartments" were being lost. The author questioned these calculations. He wrote that 900 million zł daily would mean about 328.5 billion zł annually, while the maximum budget deficit for 2026 is noted to be 271.7 billion zł, or about 744 million zł daily. He added that according to data from the Ministry of Finance, the debt of the sector of government and local government institutions according to EU methodology increased in the first half of 2026 by 263.2 billion zł, which—he calculated—would be about 1.45 billion zł daily on average. He asked what category of debt, methodology, and period the 900 million zł figure referred to. Referring to the 2000 apartments daily, the author calculated that at the amount of 900 million zł, it would mean 450,000 zł per apartment. He assessed such a comparison as lacking economic value without indicating which state expenditures should be limited or what revenues should be increased. He noted that a deficit means that expenditures exceed revenues, and the expenditures funded by it include, among others, defense, benefits, healthcare, investments, and debt service. The author also questioned Nawrocki's statement that Tusk's government indebted Poles by 1 trillion zł within four years. He reminded that the government was appointed on December 13, 2023, and by the day of the speech in Stargard, on October 2, 2026, it had not even been in power for three full years. He added that the statement could refer to a forecast for four years, but—as he pointed out—Nawrocki did not present it as a forecast. #Polska #Polityka #FinansePubliczne (translated)

I understand that you are not an economist, but after all, you have an entire army of "advisors" at your disposal... Because this is no longer information relayed by Moody. This is your RHETORIC. Just like with the debt. "In four years, the government increases debt by a trillion." The thing is, four years have not yet passed 🤷‍♂️ You are already linking the executed debt with a FUTURE FORECAST and then dividing that amount by the number of residents, announcing that a newborn has "26 thousand zł of debt." How do you come to such absurd conclusions?? I won't say it's not impressive... But public debt is not a personal obligation that is assigned to a child's account. And then there's the Constitutional Tribunal. You sign a law, still consider it unconstitutional, and send it to the Tribunal. The same Tribunal that the ECtHR has found to violate the right to a court set by law in the Xero Flor case, and the Grand Chamber of the CJEU in case C-448/23 stated that it does not meet the requirement of an independent and impartial court due to serious irregularities concerning its composition. And just minutes earlier, you said: "I'm not looking at legal loopholes." The Constitution and the legality of state organs are not "legal loopholes," Mr. Guardian of the Constitution 🤦‍♂️ And in the end, you say that you don't want "constant political war"... After a speech in which words fall: - blackmail, - the government’s ATM, - the government's financial catastrophe, - the prime minister's political plan and unsubstantiated claims that the government deliberately maintains high fuel prices to profit from them. I won't judge intentions. I assess the content. And the content of the official statement by the person holding the highest office in the state should withstand confrontation with documents 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Here - in many key areas - it does not withstand. I will no longer dwell on this speech, as I believe it is a waste of time. I'll just say this. I don't know who prepared this text for you. However, I do know that you read it, you delivered it, and you take responsibility for every word. And you repeated nonsense and manipulations that have long circulated in the statements of people from your Chancellery — which I have already corrected multiple times. The worst part is that many of them don't even take long to verify. You just need to open the documents from your own Chancellery. I really don't envy you. It only pains me your slogan: "First Poland, first Poles." Because Poland and Poles should truly come first - even before political interests, party narratives, and the need for another conflict. You cannot appeal to the good of citizens while simultaneously playing with their trust in the state, providing them from the highest office with half-truths, insinuations, and political assessments cloaked as facts. This is not about whether someone likes this government. It's about accountability for words. Especially from this office 🫣 #Polska #Polityka #Ekonomia (translated)

Mr. Nawrocki, Unfortunately, I listened to this hmmm "message" and checked it against the documents. And, as usual, I have a problem. A big one. Because when you set aside the gestures, the teleprompter, and the political phrases, what remains is a series of facts mixed with half-truths, altered chronology, forecasts presented as certainties, and accusations that are not even confirmed by the documents of your own Office and a mass of other manipulations. Step by step. "The campaign promise of fuel at 5.19." No. Mr. Donald Tusk’s specific statement about 5.19 PLN was made in JUNE 2022. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for August 8, 2023. Only then did the election campaign begin in the sense of the Electoral Code. But it gets much more interesting with your quote... In the message, you connected 5.19 PLN, "one simple decision," and... a VAT reduction 🤦‍♂️ However, in the original statement about 5.19, Tusk talked about the MARGINS of Orlen and Lotos. And in a later statement about "one decision," he also talked about limiting Orlen's profits. Not about VAT! 🤦‍♂️ You are manipulating the Prime Minister's statement, and you are using the institution of the Address to the Nation for that... Exactly the same version about VAT was spread by Mr. Bogucki in the morning, but in his case, nothing surprises me anymore. A coincidence? Let’s move on. You claim that your project would cause "an immediate drop in fuel prices of over 2 PLN." Meanwhile, your OWN justification explicitly states that the mechanism DOES NOT START when the law comes into force. First, specific market conditions must occur. Then the Council of Ministers MAY issue a regulation. Only then does the mechanism begin to work. Where is the "immediate" here? Did you read your "own" project? Or are you just repeating this nonsense from Mr. Przydacz? Moreover, earlier materials from KPRP talked about an ESTIMATE of 1.70–2.60 PLN 🤦‍♂️ In the address, the estimate has already turned into a guaranteed effect 🤦‍♂️ Next, you say that the project is "good for the budget"... Meanwhile, your own justification predicts a loss of up to 600 million PLN just from the retail sales tax and further, unestimated costs of any potential excise tax reduction. I ask again - did you read your own project? Because you probably didn’t write it manually... Even more interesting. In the address: "The government bears full responsibility for fuel prices." In the justification of your project: market disruptions have an "objective character and are independent of entrepreneurs and the government".... So please decide. Full responsibility of the government or factors independent of the government? Because both versions cannot be true at the same time 🤦‍♂️ "The Marshal of the Sejm freezes the project." The project was submitted on September 18. On the same day, it was directed to the Legislative Office and BEOS. Then for opinions and consultations. Moreover, KPRP talked about the possibility of "freezing" as early as September 17 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ THE DAY BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SEJM! So first, a narrative about freezing was created, and only later did the Marshal receive the bill 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Are you communicating with the rest of the "experts" in your office?? Next, we hear that the government deliberately keeps prices high because it wants to profit from VAT and dividends from Orlen. Proof? None was provided! A higher price may mean higher nominal VAT revenues. Orlen can pay dividends to shareholders. But one does not imply the other: this is NOT proof that the government deliberately keeps fuel prices high. This is attributing a motive without providing evidence 🤦‍♂️ Then you sign the law and say: "Every zloty obtained from this law must be spent on reducing fuel prices." A moment earlier, you conceded that the law DOES NOT CONTAIN a mechanism for passing that money on to reduce prices 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Exactly. So it "mustn't." This is your political demand, not the legal effect of the signed law 🤷‍♂️ Moody’s? Yes. Here, the fact is a fact: Poland's rating was lowered from A2 to A3. But why was there no information that at the same time, the outlook was changed from negative to STABLE? Why does the rating decision then create a vision that "tomorrow there may not be enough for pensions and armaments"? #Polska #Polityka #Fakty (translated)

Mr. Grzegorz, I read the entire justification. And I agree with one thing – legal analysis cannot be replaced with the label of a "neo-judge," because that is not an argument 🤷‍♂️ However, the justification itself, although extensive and internally organized, in my opinion leaves two very serious legal problems. The first concerns Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that in preparatory proceedings, a "blanket warrant" can be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of their objection. Here, the prosecutor filed an objection. The court does not challenge the wording of the provision. It consciously deviates from it, considering that the binding objection of the prosecutor would violate the court's jurisdictional independence. It references Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 178 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the KPP, and part of the case law of appellate courts. This is a legal argument. But there is also an opposing line of case law, based precisely on the linguistic interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the court itself notes in the justification. I wrote about this yesterday. So it is not the case that there is no problem. There is a very serious dispute about the limits of interpretation contra legem and whether the court can practically deprive the premise, which the legislator explicitly included in the provision. The second problem I have is with the prognostic assessment. The court acknowledges that Romanowski left Poland, did not appear for the hearing concerning the temporary arrest, was outside the reach of Polish authorities, and even informed in his own application that he has a passport issued under a different identity 🤷‍♂️ The court considers these circumstances to be burdensome but then assumes that they cannot determine the assessment because one should look at it primarily prospectively. 🤔 And this is where I have the greatest doubt. The prediction of a suspect's future behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Its foundational material is, after all, their past behavior. 🤷‍♂️ If a person involved in the proceedings previously did not comply with procedural mechanisms, left the country, and remained outside the reach of the authorities, then their later declaration that from this moment they will comply with the conditions of the "blanket warrant" must be subjected to particularly rigorous assessment. The court may conclude that despite this, the risk has currently diminished. But it should convincingly demonstrate why specific past behaviors have lost their prognostic significance. Because if we are to predict a person’s future behavior while disregarding their past behavior, then a rather fundamental question arises - on what basis are we actually building this prediction? 🤷‍♂️ Therefore, I would not dismiss this ruling with the label of a neo-judge, but I would also not say that the problem ends with the justification sounding rational. A rationally constructed justification can still lead to a legally debatable result. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of case we are dealing with here. The argumentation of the court is clear and can be recounted, but both the way of breaking the literal wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prognostic assessment of the suspect's behavior leave significant legal doubts. If I were to rule on this matter, I would not grant the application. Firstly – due to the prosecutor's objection and the content of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly – even accepting a different interpretation of this provision, I would not find sufficient grounds for a positive prognostic assessment. This is not about punishing Romanowski for the past. It is about assessing whether his past behavior allows rationally to assume that from this moment he will respect the obligations arising from the "blanket warrant." In my opinion – it does not allow 🤷‍♂️ And that is precisely why there is an appellate review. #prawo #justycja #analizaprawna (translated)

w Azji środa: - Azjatycki Bank Rozwoju (ADB) opublikuje swoją kwartalną prognozę gospodarczą w czasie, gdy skutki szoku energetycznego związanego z Iranem oraz zjawiska El Niño wciąż kształtują sytuację w gospodarce światowej. Flagowa publikacja tej instytucji – „Asian #ADB #prognoza #gospodarka #IR #JP #CN #IN #PH

Emocje powoli opadają. Moja kampania się skończyła, więc czas spokojnie, metodycznie przyjrzeć się wynikom📈. Nie tylko samym procentom, ale także warunkom, w których przyszło nam walczyć. Kraków od lat jest dla PiS trudnym miastem. Analizując poparcie w Krakowie w zestawieniu z wynikami ogólnopolskimi robi się ciekawie. W wyborach do Sejmu w 2023 roku, do Parlamentu Europejskiego w 2024 roku i w pierwszej turze wyborów prezydenckich w 2025 roku wynik Prawa i Sprawiedliworci lub popieranego przez partię kandydata wynosił tutaj około 70% wyniku ogólnopolskiego. Czyli jeśli PiS w Polsce miał poparcie 40%, to w Krakowie około 28%, jeśli w Polsce było 30% to w Krakowie 21%. Dzisiaj średnia ośmiu zestawionych sondaży, daje PiS 20,62%. Gdyby więc uwzględnić to statystycznie mój wynik powinien wynosić 14,32%, bo jest to te historycznie udowodnione 70% poparcia ogólnopolskiego. Ale wynik jest wyższy! Uzyskałem 17,50%. Ponad 3 punkty procentowe więcej. Około 21% ponad poziom wynikający z tej historycznej proporcji. To nie jest prognoza ani porównanie identycznych wyborów, ale jest to konkretny punkt odniesienia. I na jego tle nasz wynik jest wyraźnie lepszy. Głosowało na mnie wielu wyborców, którzy na PiS nie głosowali. Jestem im wdzięczny, że wybrali konkretnego czlowieka, kierując się wiarygodnością i aktywnością, a nie tylko znaczkiem. Warto pamiętać też o kontekście. Kiedy w 2018 roku startowała Małgorzata Wassermann, wrześniowy sondaż CBOS dla Polski pokazywał PiS 43%, a jej wynik w Krakowie wyniósł 31,88%. To pojedynczy odczyt, który dobrze przypomina, w jak innych warunkach politycznych odbywały się tamte wybory. PiS był na fali, odnosił sukcesy. Zobaczcie na wykresy- żółty po lewej stronie to różnica poparcia, dzisiaj jest minimalna, co pokazuje że dobrze wykonaliśmy pracę. Dziś mieliśmy również znacznie silniejszego Łukasza Gibałę, budującego wizerunek kandydata sprzeciwu wobec miejskiej władzy i partyjnym centralom („każdy byle nie ktoś z KO”). Sięgał także po głosy prawicy. Nie pomógł rozłam w naszym środowisku. Nie pomogły sygnały płynące od z Rozwoju Plus, gdy jeden poseł publicznie mówił, że „trzyma kciuki” za Gibałę. Mimo tego potrafiliśmy zainteresować naszą kandydaturą również ludzi spoza PiS. Według sondażu głosowali na mnie także wyborcy Konfederacji, a nawet Lewicy czy Koalicji Obywatelskiej. Pokazuje to, że moje poparcie nie zamykało się w jednym partyjnym środowisku. Nie osiągnęliśmy celu, jakim była druga tura. Ale nie przekreśla to pracy, którą wykonaliśmy, ani wyniku lepszego od historycznego punktu odniesienia. W tych warunkach uważam go za sukces naszej aktywności i wiarygodności. Rozmów z mieszkańcami. Obecności na osiedlach. Lat pracy, a nie tylko kilku tygodni kampanii. 44 772 osoby obdarzyły mnie zaufaniem. Dziękuję każdej z nich. Nie przyjechałem do Krakowa na wybory i nie wyjadę po wyborach. Dalej będę tutaj pracował. PS. Nie kandydowałem, by uzyskać stanowisko, dlatego nie aspiruję do funkcji wiceprezydenta. #Kraków #wybory #Polityka