Expensive isn’t really that expensive

 I used to smoke for years, then I didn’t smoke for seven years. When flavored cigarettes started being sold, I began smoking again… That was sometime around 2016. For the first two years, my smoking was more occasional — I was trying out different kinds of flavored cigarettes. I developed a liking for menthol Marlboros and started smoking them more actively around 2018.

Maybe smoking was normalized for me even more by Charlotte de Witte. At that time, I was listening to Charlotte de Witte constantly. I liked her modern techno and also the values she brought into techno — not underground, but mainstreaming. Charlotte de Witte also visibly liked smoking, and I told myself that I could enjoy it in a similar way too.

I perceived my renewed smoking as a kind of game; I saw cigarettes as lollipops. When flavored cigarettes were banned, I switched to Marlboro Gold, which I still enjoy to this day. If these cigarettes didn’t exist, I would probably quit smoking, because I don’t enjoy other ones. I even have a problem with Marlboro Reds.

In relation to Western countries, I sometimes hear Czechs say that cigarettes in the West are overpriced. But this isn’t true when you consider wages in Western Europe versus the Czech Republic.

Before I say anything about prices, I’d like to point out that in countries like the Netherlands, cigarettes are less accessible than in the Czech Republic. They are sold only in licensed shops; in these shops they must be hidden, all cigarette packs have the same dark-colored packaging, and unlike in the Czech Republic, they are not commonly accessible to minors.

The price of cigarettes is often judged simply by how much a pack costs in a shop. But this perspective is misleading. The real cost of smoking doesn’t arise from the price tag, but from the relationship between income, accessibility, and market regulation. That’s exactly why a paradoxical feeling can emerge that cigarettes in different countries cost “roughly the same,” even though their nominal prices differ significantly.

At first glance, the difference is obvious: in the Netherlands, a pack of cigarettes costs significantly more than in Czechia. But the absolute price says nothing about the real burden. What matters is what percentage of a typical income a smoker gives up for cigarettes. And here, the differences start to blur.

In a country with higher wages, even a more expensive pack becomes a relatively bearable expense. In contrast, in a country with lower incomes, a cheaper pack can be just as painful for the budget — or even more so.

If we take basic wages or average income into account, we find that a smoker in Czechia often spends a comparable share of their monthly budget as a smoker in Western Europe. The difference is that in Czechia, there is less room left after covering basic expenses.

Cigarettes therefore paradoxically appear cheaper to a Czech person than in Western Europe, but in reality they take a bigger bite out of disposable income in the Czech Republic, especially for people with lower wages. Smoking in Czechia can thus be relatively more expensive than the price tag alone would suggest.

Availability also plays an important role. In strictly regulated countries, cigarettes are harder to access, less visible, and under strong control. Smoking there is not impulsive. In Czechia, by contrast, cigarettes are commonly available in small shops and convenience stores, age checks are often weak, and social tolerance of smoking is higher. This leads to more frequent consumption, even though the pack is nominally cheaper. And cigarettes are easily accessible — even to young people (minors).

Price is reflected not only in money, but also in quality. In Czechia, a looser market creates space for old stock, parallel imports, and greater differences in taste. Stricter regulation means more stable quality and a smaller grey market.

When people say that cigarettes in different countries “cost roughly the same,” they’re not talking about the price on the pack, but about the feeling of accessibility. That feeling arises from a combination of price, income, regulation, and sales culture. From this perspective, cigarettes in Czechia are not as cheap as they seem — and in Western Europe, they are not as inaccessible as their price might suggest.

Swamps of Central Europe

 Yes, yes… I often criticize a country, but however it sounds, in my opinion, it’s legitimate. It also often irritates me that many Czechs hate Western Europe, and possess some kind of socialism or nihilism. These criticisms, however, have no real basis, because Western European infrastructure is at such a level that being in the Czech Republic feels bad by comparison. Yet in countries like the Netherlands, far more advanced infrastructure is powered by renewable energy despite all the criticism.

I have already written an article, Little Wonders on Dutch Rails, which focused on the frequent atmosphere of traveling through the Netherlands—not just in the evening or at night on weekends. I also wrote about Dutch atmosphere in Contrasting Reality.

 Now, I will focus on infrastructure, trains, and public transport. For me, trains in the Czech Republic are terrible: they run slowly, are often delayed, not announced, noisy, and the railways themselves are loud. In Germany, trains are at least fast and comfortable, even if not always punctual. Compared to the Benelux, train transport—and transport in general—in the Czech Republic is awful. Anyone familiar with the Benelux would hate Czech infrastructure.

In the Czech Republic, low track speeds are not the exception but the standard, with hundreds of temporary restrictions and poor track geometry. Trains run slowly even where they could technically go faster. Delays are common, often unannounced or announced late/incorrectly. In the Netherlands, every minute is announced accurately, and ticket refunds are issued for problems on the track.

Information systems in the Czech Republic are fragmented and inconsistent. It’s not unusual for staff themselves to know less than the passengers. This leads to a feeling of powerlessness and chaos. This problem is reinforced by the operational culture, where the “it will somehow get there” mentality (not just about trains) and lack of clear responsibility mean that delays accumulate and are not addressed at the source.

Noise. In the Czech Republic, people don’t even realize that such loud railways don’t exist in the Benelux. The same applies to trains. Another significant deficit of Czech railways is acoustic and operational quality. Old rails, corrugated undercarriage assemblies, insufficient noise reduction measures, and often outdated vehicles lead to high noise levels. All this contributes to the perception of railways as “uncomfortable and noisy,” especially compared to the quiet, soundproofed systems in the Benelux.

Public transport in the Netherlands and Belgium is fast (the trains themselves are high-speed), reliable, and regular. Punctuality often exceeds 90% of trains (European above-average), and in exceptional cases, services are temporarily suspended to prevent cascading failures across the network. Modern vehicles with quality soundproofing and interiors, along with smooth rail surfaces, ensure quiet and comfortable travel. Transparent and consistent information systems allow passengers to plan journeys with confidence, even when disruptions or minor delays occur. As with everything in the Benelux, quality is considered a fundamental part of life. In the Czech Republic, almost not at all.

The lag in Czech infrastructure is caused by fragmented infrastructure, insufficiently modernized tracks, and outdated vehicles. Weak transport management: missing central predictive planning and crisis management systems. Or a lack of a culture of responsibility: delays and problems are tolerated instead of systematically eliminated.

Luxembourg also offers free public transport, including trains, buses, and urban transport. This ensures maximum accessibility, reduces car traffic and also emissions, and provides passengers with simple and predictable travel options.

In 2026, Czech railways are still below a critical quality threshold in terms of speed, reliability, comfort, and operational culture. The contrast with the Benelux and within speed in Germany is overwhelming.

The philosophy of infrastructure in the Benelux is clear: it is a public service oriented toward passengers, prioritizing punctuality, comfort, and respect for people. Problems are addressed systematically so they do not disrupt the entire operation, unlike the Czech model, where delays and failures remain tolerated and cumulative.

Problems in Czech transport are not limited to railways. The road network is chronically underdimensioned and overloaded, the condition of surfaces and transport infrastructure is often inadequate, and maintenance is irregular. As with trains, the principle of “it will somehow get there” applies—the system lacks sufficient reserves or predictive management to ensure smooth operation. Vehicle quality is also different in the Benelux.

In contrast to Czech infrastructure, the Benelux represents a model of efficiency, speed, and transport quality, while Czech railways lag not only technically but also operationally and culturally. The difference is evident not only in speed and reliability but also in comfort, information, and the philosophy of the whole system.

This situation affects not only travel time but also safety and comfort. Compared to the Benelux, where infrastructure is systematically planned, well-maintained, and complemented by quality public transport, the Czech approach to infrastructure seems outdated, fragmented, and improvised—just to make it look like something works.

I Don’t Need Architects in Order to Build Skyscrapers

 I apparently already have several articles where I take shots at Trump. The first one was probably when I wrote about Chloë Moretz. I like Chloë Moretz because of her identity. She spoke out against Trump during the elections. She’s not alone—recently, Trump also went after George Clooney.

Everyone also knows how Trump wanted to deal with the war. Sometimes I wonder whether Trump even really exists, because he seems so absurd, as if he lived detached from reality. Everyone knows that he once attacked Ukraine as if it were the instigator. His attacks on Europe have also been more than sufficient, and recently, in relation to Greenland, I was amused by the public statement that “Donald Trump is a huge idiot.”

And this is the point of this post: Ukaleq Slettemark also said that she fears for the future of her country and that the people of Greenland are “terrorized” by Donald Trump’s statements. Slettemark stated that her family and people in Greenland are frightened and are considering that they might have to leave their home, because they see the current situation as dangerous and “terrorizing.”

Trump has repeatedly and over a long period of time expressed hostility toward Western Europe as well—politically, economically, and culturally. This isn’t about a single statement, but about a recurring pattern.

I recently also wrote about the economy, for example about the richest Luxembourg per capita. And about the fact that although Trump attacks Western Europe, if Benelux were on U.S. territory, it would be the richest country in the world, with far greater wealth than it has now, and with a social system that the U.S. lacks. Nowhere in Benelux, nor in Germany, will you find problems like those in the U.S. For example, in Benelux there are no homeless classes, zones, mass drug addicts on the streets, excluded areas, etc., and human rights and freedoms exist here—because Benelux is structured so that this happens, and so that what is happening in today’s U.S. on a massive scale does not happen.

In a way, Greenland seems to me as if Trump wanted to take another state, for example somewhere in Europe. As I said, sometimes I feel that Trump doesn’t live in reality when I randomly see his statements on the internet. But they are mostly random precisely because I don’t even want to read nonsense. Similarly, since someone in the Czechia came into power, I don’t read anything at all, because it’s clear to me who they are, and no constructive statements can exist—only nonsense. Since we’re here, I also currently don’t have the fears that were obvious during their last term. Everyone in the West already knows the reality, and there is no possibility to repeat anything. It is probably clear today also because of the statements themselves.

It’s like when someone says that their power is limited only by their own morality and their own judgment, and that they “don’t need international law” as a restriction on their actions. That’s something anyone could say about any laws in court. And it’s also something anyone can say in general. People could then return under the trees, back to an existence of an unwritten civilization. Civilization begins at the moment when force ceases to be the only law. That means: norms exist that limit even rulers; there is a difference between power and legitimacy; violence is regulated, not arbitrary. Without that, you only have a tribe, an empire, or chaos—not a civilization.