The tragedy of the commons describes the opposite situation – the property belongs to everyone, but at thesame time to nobody, although they all think that a) the property belongs to nobody, and b) they have full rights to the benefits from the property.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated and strained the Georgian politics. The opposition thought it could easily defeat the ruling party in the face of a pandemic crisis. On the other hand, due to the successes achieved in the early spring, the government hoped to retain power easily.
The 2020 elections have been crucial in a number of coutries – from a forthcoming one in the United States, to most recent ones in Lithuania. The same is true also for Georgia. On November 3, the Georgian citizens need to decide and to opt for either Russia or the West.
Many of the projects and ideas presented by the Georgian government are good examples of wishful thinking. However, when the ruling party is called Georgian Dream, a pursuit of wishes and dreams should not surprise anyone.
The story of Georgia should be an example to all developing nations that any country with the will to do so can take charge of its own tax system and, without the aide or interference of international organizations, create the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.
In times of crisis, it is easy to make mistakes, and no one can be infallible. One of the most characteristic signs of the crisis is its politicization. All parties want to prove that they have the best program and ideas to get out of the crisis.
In the current difficult situation, it is especially important for Georgia to choose a pragmatic way and not to be overwhelmed by emotions – this applies to health care measures as well as economic policy.
The football business shows well how underestimating a well-performing and efficient player can bring other costs. The player may either simply leave for another team, or, if restricted with a contract – underperform to the level only required by the payment.
People can be divided into two groups: those for whom individual freedom is the most important value and the rest, for whom the freedom is not so important. I do not have any objection to the second group, but their position is simply unacceptable for, probably, the other way around.