Salam Stockholm!
Matein Khalid
My generation were teenagers in the late 1970's and thus passionate fans of Sweden since Abba dominated the Top of the Pops (God, how I hated the ghastly Dancing Queen since every girl in high school thought this syrupy pop tune was written specifically for her!) and Björn Borg dominated Centre Court at Wimbledon as the Men's Champion until the trophy was wrested from him in 1981 in a five set marathon by the awful but brilliant American John McEnroe. As I grew older, I learnt to love Sweden's amazing social tolerance and cosmopolitan culture, its democratic values, welfare state, its beautiful lakes, ancient cities and effervescent young women whom I met in my fave Hellenic beach resorts like Ayia Napa in Cyprus and Mykonos in the Greek Aegean.
However, in 2025, I have a special reason to love Sweden and it is definitely not the ugly furniture of Ikea my Gen-Z twins adore. The Swedish kroner has been the best anti-dollar FX hedge of 2025 and is up an incredible 17% in the last 6-months. As I expect the Trump Buckeroo to fall 20% before the Big Guy leaves the White house, I hope my Swedish kroner stash rises another 20% and offsets the already exorbitant cost of a Scandi holiday. Since I prefer the Med to the Baltics at any time of the year, why not revert back to the 1980's watering holes in the Cyclades and meet nice Swedish people in the Scandinavian love shack rather than actually flying to Stockholm Gothenburg or Malmö.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sweden is also one of the world's most successful case studies in innovation and entrepreneurial capitalism, the reason Nasdaq's Old World hub is in Stockholm. This $900 billion economy is one of my favourite countries to invest for the next 5-years as long as Putin does not invade Estonia and try to usurp King Charles XII's role as the supreme war lord of the North with a blockade of the Baltics. After all, Putin is from St. Petersburg, a port founded by Tsar Pyotr Alexievich to fight the Swedish empire, the superpower of the North in the first decade of the 18th century.
This IT/green tech/export colossus is a goldmine for investors who love corruption free economies dedicated to innovation and talent, a natural for any refugee from Planet Dollar like moi!
Also published on Medium.
Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
11 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Eala makes history for Philippines by reaching Eastbourne final
Alexandra Eala became the first Filipino to reach a WTA Tour final as she beat fellow qualifier Varvara Gracheva 7-5 2-6 6-3 at the Eastbourne Open on Friday, while lucky loser Jenson Brooksby will meet holder Taylor Fritz in the men's final. Left-hander Eala, ranked 74th in the world, edged a tight first set before losing five games in a row in the second as the match appeared to be slipping away. But the 20-year-old regrouped in the decider and survived a tough seventh game before breaking her French opponent's serve to lead 5-3. She then enjoyed a love service game to seal victory. In Saturday's final she will face 19-year-old Australian Maya Joint who beat Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 7-5 6-3. It will be the youngest Eastbourne final since 1981 when Tracy Austin faced fellow American Andrea Jaeger. "I'm super happy because that was a tough match and there were some really tough moments," an emotional Eala, who is based in Mallorca and trains at the Rafa Nadal Academy, said on court. "It was tough physically and mentally because she is a tough player and also came from qualifying." Eala's run will not have gone unnoticed by Wimbledon champion Barbora Krejcikova, who has been drawn to play her in the first round at the All England Club next week. Krejcikova reached the quarter-finals at Eastbourne but withdrew with a thigh injury on Thursday. Joint continued her impressive run as she reached her first WTA final on grass, coming from 5-3 behind in the opening set against Pavlyuchenkova to take control. "I'm very excited," the 51st-ranked Joint said on court. "I've learned to love playing on grass this week." Three-times champion Fritz overcame Spanish sixth seed Alejandro Davidovich Fokina 6-3 3-6 6-1 and will now face fellow-American Brooksby after the lucky loser beat French fourth seed Ugo Humbert. Fritz broke the Spaniard's first service game as he comfortably won the first set, and while Davidovich Fokina fought back to force a decider, the American broke twice in the last set to reach the final for the fourth time. Brooksby won his first ATP title in April at the U.S. Men's Clay Court Championship, where he began as a wildcard in the qualifying rounds and his 6-7(7) 6-4 6-4 win over Humbert sees the American make it to another final. "I think it's a lot less pressure when you don't expect to be in the main draw and get the opportunity," Brooksby said. "You just want to make the most of it." Humbert came from 5-3 down to win the opening set on a tiebreak, before Brooksby bounced back despite the Frenchman's battling spirit. The American took a 3-0 lead in the next two sets and Humbert drew level on both occasions, but Brooksby clinched both sets with a break of serve.
Dubai Eye
11 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
Gulf Today
20 hours ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
