Messages based on the premise that there is a lack of money have become an everyday occurrence in the media and in the rhetoric of politicians and officials at various levels. There are many problems, but… there is no money, and we can only hope for solutions to the issues that are important today… perhaps… in 2025.

Schools, fire stations, and post offices are having to be closed, and there are months-long waiting lists to see a doctor because quotas have been exhausted; there are insufficient funds for the repair of potholed streets because there is not enough money…

Yet, in various plans, decision-makers are ready to decide at a moment's notice on restrictions conceived here in Latvia, which will result in our entire society—and therefore our country—losing up to 2 billion euros every year. Do we need to turn the country into a peculiar nature reserve where more is forbidden than is permitted?

This is the status quo, and it must change!

Thirty-four years after the restoration of our country's independence, we are living in a near-constant whirlwind of problem-solving and various reforms, while our neighbours, as news sources, politicians, and officials are very keen to point out, have moved quite far ahead of us. How is this so? It is harsh and unpleasant, but it is clear that with the current attitude, inertia, and power (or lack thereof) of the public sector—politicians and officials—we will not be able to move forward rapidly and decisively. Perhaps we shouldn't? Shall we pride ourselves on being third in the Baltics?!

Latvia is a member state of the European Union, the movement of labour is free, and our people are building and developing the economies of Ireland, Germany, Spain, Estonia, Lithuania, and even Great Britain, supplementing the treasuries of those countries. Employers complain from time to time about a shortage of labour; in more than one school, the wind is now whistling through the hallways because there is no one to attend them; service providers and retailers are 'shrinking' due to a lack of buyers and consumers. Is this 'shrinking' an objective overcoming of the Soviet-era legacy? Or, more than three decades after the restoration of Latvia's independence, is the long-defunct system of the occupying power still to blame for the aforementioned and other problems—the liquidation of jobs, new restrictions on economic activity, and excessively servile bureaucracy (which, apart from its 'creators', no one needs)? That is an answer worthy only of empty talkers.

To solve the problems listed above, funding is and will be required. Money 'enters and remains' in the state coffers from taxes paid by entrepreneurs and residents, as well as from various types of EU co-financing. No one has promised that such co-financing will be available to Latvia forever; furthermore, it must be remembered that those providing it set requirements, the fulfilment of which often consumes time and resources that could otherwise be used for value creation. Public administration in Latvia must understand and accept what the officials and politicians of the Nordic countries, Estonia, Lithuania, and Western European nations realised long ago—that what society can spend, and how much (and whether it can spend at all), will depend on the success and actions of entrepreneurs within the environment created by politicians and officials. The more and more effectively entrepreneurs invest and work, the more people they employ, and the higher the value-added per job they create, the greater the entrepreneurs' capacity will be to pay higher wages and taxes, which in turn maintain the state and fund what is necessary for society—education, healthcare, security, public transport, etc.

It should be noted that the state collects a large portion of the wealth created by employees, entrepreneurs, and the self-employed in the form of taxes to carry out a sufficient number of tasks. For the state to be able to spend, wealth must first be created. Without it, we will not buy trains, maintain an army, ensure security, or be able to help ourselves or Ukraine. If entrepreneurs create this wealth, the funds will be there. Everyone must know this!

We must stop regarding entrepreneurs as undesirable and stop cultivating the fallacy that they are tax evaders, crooks, schemers, or fraudsters. Instead, we must think about how to attract investments that would create new jobs and export-capable products and services with higher added value. We need solutions—perhaps simple, perhaps complex—that would make the business environment in Latvia both attractive and competitive throughout the region.

It seems the first and most essential task would be to identify those decisions, requirements, guidelines, and regulations that destroy and hinder the competitiveness of the Latvian business environment, followed by their dismantling, cancellation, or significant easing. New measures that restrict or prohibit business activity must not be introduced, as they will only provide and increase advantages for competitor nations. Since it is naive to nurture illusions about attracting massive investments in the current geopolitical circumstances, we must talk to both domestic and foreign entrepreneurs to understand the factors and conditions that hinder faster development and what the state must do so that entrepreneurs will invest in expanding existing production facilities or building new ones.

If we do nothing or continue to look for reasons why we cannot do something in Latvia, we will have to resign ourselves to remaining firmly in the rearguard of the EU, where there will be even less money to fund the services necessary for society, and living on debt in the long term will not be possible.

We must not set business against teachers, medics, or firefighters, or vice-versa, because that is how the authorities act when they enjoy the principle of 'divide and rule': pitting different groups of society against one another, so that they try to fight or restrict each other, is the best way to hold onto power. If we were to turn together against the decision-makers, against the nonsensical conditions for complying with various regulations, those sitting in the heights of power would have to leave their comfortable seats.

New bans and restrictions on economic activity in land management will reduce the number of both employed people and the total population in the country. If there are no alternative jobs, at least for now, it will mean another 'shrinking' in an already sparsely populated Latvia. Consequently, as mentioned above, there will be a correspondingly smaller demand for the work of firefighters, police officers, postmen, librarians, and teachers, and tax revenues will also become increasingly smaller. The fewer consumers there are, the almost inevitable solution to the lack of money in the state coffers will be higher tax rates, new and unprecedented taxes, or the abolition of existing tax reliefs. The fewer residents there are, the higher the costs for electricity, gas, and road infrastructure will have to be covered by those who remain. Which of these solutions do you like the best?!

Let us not allow stagnation!

We stand for the development and security of our nation and land!