Matchin models beyond labor markets

So-called matching models are used in labor economics to explain how employers and employees find themselves in their labor markets. In efficient markets, the best candidates capture the best roles in the best employers. I thought that matching models can be considered not only from a labor market perspective, but overall matching in society. I thought of a couple of friends who could not find their place in our society. It does not mean they are not good; they are just not good for our society, which offers limited opportunities, and these limited opportunities require certain skills to capture.

The double language of foreign policy

For foreign policy maneuvering, it is quite normal for leaders to think one thing, say another, mean something else, and do something entirely different. Informal contracts are extremely incomplete in foreign policy, whereas for economic agents, it does not work that way: you are expected to think, say, mean, and do the same.

Why Pro-Business policies succeed in the U.S. but fail elsewhere: the role of federalism and regional autonomy.

I was wondering why pro-business policies fail in many countries, while the US remains a country where they are not confronted as much as in any other country. I also thought about the Chilean referendum about their constitution, which I believe happened last year, where, after many years of pro-business extremism, growing inequality, and discontent, the doors opened for the leftists to come to power. But they failed to pass their leftist constitution draft twice. The idea is the following: a given country does not grow economically evenly across all its regions. When you are not unitary but federative, or even if you are unitary but you have strong local authorities with necessary powers and tax revenues, I believe those regions where economic growth is way above the country level can implement pro-business policies easily. California is a cradle for innovative industries coz its pro-business policies are politically acceptable.

Religion, the State, and the Individual: Who sets the boudaries of Human Freedom?

What I want to discuss with you now may sound like complete nonsense, but I find the topic genuinely interesting. Let’s think it through together.
We know that many religions teach that we are merely guests in this world, born to impose limitations on ourselves in pursuit of a worthy afterlife. Religion was the first social formation in human history to introduce behavioral norms and rules. Then came the Leviathan – the state. Its role gradually expanded until it eventually surpassed that of religion. The state began to establish and enforce its own rules, norms, and social boundaries.
I’ve noticed that in countries where the state is strong, people show less inclination toward personal ownership. They prefer to work for the state, create assets for it, and live off its returns rather than seeking to own those assets themselves – because they don’t want the responsibility that comes with ownership. And when retirement or a decent pension comes, they simply pass the asset on to someone else. This led me to think that there’s a kind of analogy between religion and a strong state.
Now I’m thinking about a third possibility. Let’s imagine a society not dominated by a strong state, but by strong individuals. What happens in that case? Does the individual also impose restrictions on themselves? I can’t quite work out this third analogy. In the first case, religion says: follow the norms, and you’ll be rewarded in the afterlife. The state says: follow the rules, and you’ll enjoy a good life after retirement. But what does the individual say to themselves in a society of strong individuals?