Microsoft is not replacing 27% of staff with AI

No, Microsoft is not firing 60 000 people because of AI. The press release is corporate marketing, interpreted incorrectly.

In fact, Microsoft only said that 60,000 employees are "eligible" for the buyout program. This doesn't mean all will take it. The real number will likely be 3-4 times less. Maybe 10-20k. Out of a total of 295000 employees. So no, Microsoft doesn't fire 27% of their workforce, and doesn't replace them with AI.

And even if Microsoft would fire 10-20k of employees: this would be not news, and it would not mean they would necessarily decrease their total workforce. 

Because they do this every year, before publishing their financial results.

Most big corporations announce these "cost reductions to increase efficiency". Shareholders like this, because it means higher profits and dividends. 

The interesting mechanism is that they fire 5-10% of staff, and hire others. 

Microsoft has announced layoffs almost every year for the past 10 years, with peaks in 2023 and 2025 (up to 7%). They announced 11000 in 2023, and 15000 in 2025, but still ended pretty much the same.

Over 2016–2025, Microsoft announced roughly 40,000–45,000 layoffs in total. Still, their staff grew from 116000 to 225000.

Yes, they always say it's for increasing efficiency and lowering costs. Now: with AI.

These redundancies often overlap with the 10% efficiency rule of Jack Welsh (you know, from the great GE. It's a mandatory case study in all MBA programs across the world). He said that the bottom 10%, the low performers, should always be fired, every year. And replaced with new, better employees.

Of course there are also companies who really reduce their workforce. Some even die. 

But don't believe every corporate press release. First look at their stock prices. 

(AI) Technology doesn't democratize efficiency. It benefits early adopters

Technology doesn't democratize things. Initially, it benefits early adopters. Those with the resources and education to adopt and adapt fast. 

The new tech buzzword is: AI agents make everybody more efficient.

Yes, it does. But not equally.

It's a good punchline and buzzword, saying that technology democratizes things - information, knowledge, education, transportation, resources, communication, or, with contemporary AI agents: work efficiency.

But this is rarely true.

I don't remember any technological innovation who really democratized things - at least at first. 

Technology tends to benefit first the rich and the educated - those who already have the capacity to invest, absorb and adapt faster. 

Yes, technology trickles down, eventually. But not immediately. 

It was the same with automobiles - first adopters were rich people; later beneficiaries were industrialists who sold (Ford Model T) affordable cars to the working class. 

Same with writing, printing, books, and newspapers: for hundreds of years, the beneficiaries were still the upper and middle classes, who were already literate, or had the resources to educate their children. For hundreds of years after Gutenberg, the majority of the population remained illiterate and didn't really benefit. Intergenerational mobility was significantly lower at the time, when education was a luxury, and most children had to start working VERY early in factories or agriculture. 

Same with the internet and email: first few years, it was reserved for universities, researchers, top tech entrepreneurs, academia, financial magnates - not everybody. 

So no, AI is not for everybody, it doesn't democratize first, and it doesn't benefit everybody equally. We have to move and adapt fast.

New relevant study (from Marius Comper): 

https://www.ft.com/content/0873e3cb-cb02-4b47-941f-14da74149670?fbclid=IwdGRjcARa7tVjbGNrBFruyGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtvpmg9E9NL4vg8-W7XJcFqyz5I2YLwqWuTkFra4mwAO2yOhKZZzgCDBPoPh_aem_WAnPyG78hQSzOTJtuOIDVw

See also discussion 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YjsXCRPB/

The EU Inc. new type of company: Expectations vs. Reality

REALITY CHECK. The new EU Inc. type of company is a great initiative, but you will STILL need to apply all the local, national and regional reporting, taxes and authorisations, including taxes at all levels, employment taxes, GDPR, etc etc etc, and all other regulations that all administrations and the EU will continue to invent and enforce. 

These initiatives are VERY political and sound nice, but the reality is that there are a lot of things yet to be done.

"Today, the European Commission presented its proposal for EU Inc., a new single set of corporate rules, building the cornerstone and starting point for the EU's 28th regime. EU Inc. is an optional, digital-by-default European corporate framework. It will make it easier for businesses to start, operate and grow across the EU – incentivising them to stay in Europe, and encourage those who once looked elsewhere to return." 

The biggest innovation of the EU Inc. initiative is the definition and facilities for innovative startups and scale-ups.

But opening a new company was anyway the easiest thing to do in a lot of countries (with a few exceptions).

Then, the operation of the company remains pretty much the same as today. All the local, regional and national taxes, rules and regulations remain applicable.

AS AN EXAMPLE,

If you are a French citizen, with Romanian fiscal residency, with a personal property in Belgium, and own a company in Bulgaria, with customers in Poland and employees in Greece, you will pay:

* Tax on personal property (and rent) in Belgium.

* Profit tax in Bulgaria (depending on the type of business, also possibly in Poland - depending on local/national regulations and type of service. Most national fiscal authorities tax you depending on where you earned your profit, or effectively operate, not necessarily on the place of incorporation).

* Tax on income from dividends: in Romania.

* VAT in all countries where the company operates, mostly Bulgaria, but maybe also Poland (depending on the delivery location, type of product/service, and type of clients, e.g. if the client is registered for VAT purposes or not)

* Employee and employment taxes in Greece (and most probably also something in Bulgaria).

I am not joking.

EU creates regulations that kill European businesses and innovation, and then makes reports and recommendations to ease the regulations (such as the Draghi report, or all recent declarations of Mme Leyen, or of most politicians).

For instance, one of the biggest barriers for cross-national businesses are the banking and financial regulations, imposed mostly by the EU and ECB. Opening a new bank account for a new business is probably THE MOST DIFFICULT operation in most European countries.

Another barrier to startups is the GDPR. And the AI Act will be hitting us soon.

IN CONCLUSION, these initiatives are VERY political and sound nice, but the reality is that there are a lot of things yet to be done. 

The press release is here.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_614

Inflation is a proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation is an ancient-proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation was not invented in 1971, when Richard Nixon formally abandoned the gold standard. The UK had already stopped internal convertibility in 1931, US in 1933.

Gold and silver were theoretically also “convertible” during the hyperinflation of the 3rd-century crisis of the Roman Empire, or in Ptolemaic Egypt. 

The inflation of 16th-century imperial Spain had nothing to do with convertibility. 

Governments have generated inflation both with and without gold and silver.

Of course, it’s remarkable that nobody understands what inflation actually is. 

Inflation is a hidden tax on the entire money supply, including bank deposits.

Plus a reduction of domestic production costs, to increase competitiveness in foreign markets in the short term. 

It’s remarkable what governments do with this. And it’s remarkable that almost no one understands it.

Inflation is a massive, hidden tax.

Why I Don't Believe in the Pension System (Even Though I'm Pro-Social Policies)

I'm very socialist when it comes to pensions — and broadly, when it comes to education, research, healthcare, and social safety nets. I deeply believe in the state’s responsibility to provide basic protections for its citizens.

But in most other areas, I’m quite capitalist. I believe in market dynamics, personal responsibility, and economic freedom.

That’s exactly why I don’t believe in the pension system — not Pillar I, not Pillar II, not Pillar III.

Pillar I: Social safety net, not a real pension.

Let’s be honest: Pillar I is not a retirement savings plan. It’s a social assistance mechanism — and that’s okay! It’s like unemployment benefits, public education, or universal healthcare. It’s meant to be a safety net for the elderly, to ensure a minimum standard of living in old age.

But let’s stop pretending it’s a “contributive” system. It never was, and it never will be. It has never been financially sustainable. It runs on political promises, electoral cycles, and constant state patchwork. It’s been eroded consistently — especially through inflation, special pensions, and arbitrary decisions by the state.

So yes, it’s a socialist system — and that’s fine. But it’s not what people are told it is.

Pillar II: State-controlled investment? That’s not real investment.

Pillar II was supposed to be a privately managed pension fund. In reality, it’s state-controlled. And I’ve never trusted a system where the state tells me how to invest my own money.

That’s not investment. That’s just another political instrument.

I’ve always been certain that the state will eventually seize or redirect those funds — and so far, it’s doing exactly that. It controls where and how the money is invested, how and when it can be withdrawn, and whether we’ll even see it again.

I’m convinced we won’t. Pillar II was just electoral marketing.

In short, we need to rethink how we talk about pensions. We need to stop mixing the language of "social protection" with "financial independence".

What I Learned Losing a Million Dollars – A Modern Fairy Tale About Gambling in Business

I don’t read business books much anymore. I used to. Obsessively. At one point, reading felt like a compulsion—an intellectual sugar rush I couldn’t resist. These days, I prefer something sharper: peer-reviewed science, niche blogs, curated newsletters, specialized courses, and a healthy dose of GPT-fueled learning. Less time consuming, more frictionless, and far more adaptable to what I’m actually trying to do—learn and build.

But sometimes a book sneaks through the firewall.

What I Learned Losing a Million Dollars, by Jim Paul, came recommended by Sabin Gilceava.

This is an easy read - more of a business fable than a textbook. The story is compelling, a tale of gambling your way into (and out of) trading and business. It follows a tried-and-true formula: tell the reader simple but intriguing truths, sprinkle in some elementary insights from psychology and statistics, and package it all in a way that makes the reader feel smart. It’s accessible. It's a modern fairy tale - i.e. it’s about money.

It dances with ethical ambiguity. You keep wondering: is the author reflecting or justifying? It is not about value creation, nor business. It's about money, connections, bluffing, image, cheating, misrepresentation, risk, gambling, trading, speculation, money.

In that context, the introductory references to Edison or Ford are ironic. Please. Those men were engineers; they built things. 

That said, the book serves as a good reminder of foundational, state-of-the-art scientific and educational literature from psychology, economics, and statistics. The application of the five stages of grief (from pain management) to business loss is actually quite interesting. But like many books in this genre, it overstays its welcome, and sometimes exagerates with elementary truth until they become false. There’s a point where you realize you’re reading another 10-page explanation of why having a plan is better than not having a plan. And surely, both experience and research suggest that rigidly following an initial plan is usually a mistake, something the author simply ignores. Likewise, the value of objective over subjective decision-making is a repeated theme, in literature as well as in this book. Even though, surprisingly, it’s contradicted in the book’s very conclusion.

One quote stands out as a neat summary of the entire work:

“Most people who think they are investing are speculating. And most people who think they are speculating are gambling.”

Simple. Sharp. That wraps it up.