Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Finland

CaptainYooh · 02-16-2016, 03:22 PM

Just got back from Finland. Visited Helsinki as well as small villages near Inari Lake north of the Arctic Circle. A cute Northern European country roughly comparable in size and population to Alberta and, in climate, to NWT/Yukon. Overall, a boring trip. There is not much to see there, especially, for a Canadian. Winter roads, lots of snow, reindeer. Significant evidence of remnant glory from the imperial Russia and imperial Sweden historical influences. Lots of Russian people pretty much everywhere; not sure, if they are tourists or residents, but there were more signs in Russian than in English, I thought.

I spent some time discussing life in Finland with a friend, who is a distinguished research professor at the University of Helsinki. Before I get to the point of the thread, I should mention that I have visited other Scandinavian countries previously (specifically, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) and I am familiar with the general political and cultural settings of these countries.

For those who think that socialism = Obama (or Trudeau or Notley), it is not a true equation at all. Without getting too deep into Marx's theory of surplus value and labour and its further theoretical development by Lenin and Trotsky, these following two principles apply:

The fundamental stated principle of socialism is: "From each person in accordance with his/her ability; to each person in accordance with his/her labour contribution".
The fundamental stated principle of communism is: "From each person in accordance with his/her ability; to each person in accordance with his/her needs."

Socialism was supposed to become a transitional period filling a historic gap from capitalism to communism, once the socialist phase helps a country to develop economically and to be able to support the communist re-distribution of wealth. In fact, as USSR was getting economically developed but not able to reach the coveted goal of communism, its ideologues have invented a term "developed socialism", but that's irrelevant.

OK, here it goes: Finland is not a socialist country. It is part-capitalist and part-communist. Something that neither Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao had predicted. If you really think about it, the socialist stated principle makes a lot of sense and is, in fact, the same as capitalism principle. The difference is that the employers are not allowed to make unfair profits in socialism and the fairness of profit is determined by the state.

Taxes in Finland are astronomical. My friend told me that while he and his wife both work, they pay over 60% in total income taxes, plus VAT, plus local sales taxes. His after-tax earnings are less than 20% of what they make and they are all spent on basic stuff. They cannot save. Second employed person in the household is taxed unfavourably. In his situation, if his wife didn't work, their net financial effect would be zero. She works, because she's bored.

Those that don't work in Finland, get welfare, lots of it. In fact, they get pretty much everything that the working people get. Accommodation, food, medical, dental, optical, mental, psychological, training, education, even recreational services - are all available to the people on welfare. You do not need to be disabled, medically, to qualify for welfare. If you don't have work, you qualify. The only drawbacks to being on welfare - you can't travel abroad and you have to, well, humiliate yourself periodically to get some of the "extra luxury" services (i.e. massages) approved.

I asked, about the incentives to work? He couldn't come up with anything other than freedom and pride. However; he did say that young educated people have extreme difficulties finding work in most areas and get quickly discouraged and disinterested in looking for work. Even manual labour jobs are not easy to find.

Other than good hockey players, Finland is no longer exporting anything of value to the world. It used to export paper and mill products (one of the best quality paper in the world!); but the world demand for paper is weak these days. Finnish construction practices used to be in great demand in other countries, not anymore. High labour costs and payroll burdens made them noncompetitive to the hungry and little-regulated Polish, Turkish and Hungarian contractors. Finland economy has become primarily self-serving.

Now, self-serving isolated economies can exist very well but only when the welfare component is minor. In Finland case, this could be a Frankenstein. I remember a conversation with a supplier I had in Sweden 20 years ago. He said that paying 50% in income taxes is fair considering the amount of free Government services they get. I wonder what he'd say today? Free Government-sponsored services are sustainable only to a certain threshold. In Finland, this could be the last year that students don't have to pay for university education. Wait times to see a family doctor are increasing (2-3 weeks). Dental and optical services are no longer free to those who work (still free to those who don't).

Something's gotta give. What would it be? Obviously, it starts with the reduced quality of living and services. Also, later pensions and even more taxes. But then there is no more room to fund the welfare recipients, whose numbers are now so significant that they can elect a party to power. Just promise to keep the money flowing and get elected. Next - Greece?

Hence; my thought. Real Marxist Socialism is ephemeral; it doesn't exist even in those countries we have all thought of as exceptionally good and civilized examples of it. (Norway could be somewhat of an exception, but it had accumulated such an enormous amount of rainy day fund money saved from oil exploration, it may help it sustain at least some of their socialist policies for many years to come).

I have no doubts anymore that the world is going to replace hydrocarbons as a primary energy source in the foreseeable future. With the main source of export disappearing, what would make Canada different from little Finland in terms of being able to support its economy? In fact, it would be even more difficult for us. Geographically, Canada is much larger and more expensive to service. The percentage of its welfare recipients is growing steady and the politicians take note by pitching their platforms to them. The Liberals of today are significantly "lefter" than the Liberals of yesteryear. Plus, many of the First Nation people are getting the gist of what a good lawyer can do for them fighting the Government on every possible compensation issue.

If the Canadian politics continue shifting left towards a welfare state, would Finland become Canada's future?

02-16-2016, 03:22 PM	#1
CaptainYooh Franchise Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Calgary Exp:	Finland - A Prototype of Canada's Future? Just got back from Finland. Visited Helsinki as well as small villages near Inari Lake north of the Arctic Circle. A cute Northern European country roughly comparable in size and population to Alberta and, in climate, to NWT/Yukon. Overall, a boring trip. There is not much to see there, especially, for a Canadian. Winter roads, lots of snow, reindeer. Significant evidence of remnant glory from the imperial Russia and imperial Sweden historical influences. Lots of Russian people pretty much everywhere; not sure, if they are tourists or residents, but there were more signs in Russian than in English, I thought. I spent some time discussing life in Finland with a friend, who is a distinguished research professor at the University of Helsinki. Before I get to the point of the thread, I should mention that I have visited other Scandinavian countries previously (specifically, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) and I am familiar with the general political and cultural settings of these countries. For those who think that socialism = Obama (or Trudeau or Notley), it is not a true equation at all. Without getting too deep into Marx's theory of surplus value and labour and its further theoretical development by Lenin and Trotsky, these following two principles apply: The fundamental stated principle of socialism is: "From each person in accordance with his/her ability; to each person in accordance with his/her labour contribution". The fundamental stated principle of communism is: "From each person in accordance with his/her ability; to each person in accordance with his/her needs." Socialism was supposed to become a transitional period filling a historic gap from capitalism to communism, once the socialist phase helps a country to develop economically and to be able to support the communist re-distribution of wealth. In fact, as USSR was getting economically developed but not able to reach the coveted goal of communism, its ideologues have invented a term "developed socialism", but that's irrelevant. OK, here it goes: Finland is not a socialist country. It is part-capitalist and part-communist. Something that neither Marx, Engels, Lenin or Mao had predicted. If you really think about it, the socialist stated principle makes a lot of sense and is, in fact, the same as capitalism principle. The difference is that the employers are not allowed to make unfair profits in socialism and the fairness of profit is determined by the state. Taxes in Finland are astronomical. My friend told me that while he and his wife both work, they pay over 60% in total income taxes, plus VAT, plus local sales taxes. His after-tax earnings are less than 20% of what they make and they are all spent on basic stuff. They cannot save. Second employed person in the household is taxed unfavourably. In his situation, if his wife didn't work, their net financial effect would be zero. She works, because she's bored. Those that don't work in Finland, get welfare, lots of it. In fact, they get pretty much everything that the working people get. Accommodation, food, medical, dental, optical, mental, psychological, training, education, even recreational services - are all available to the people on welfare. You do not need to be disabled, medically, to qualify for welfare. If you don't have work, you qualify. The only drawbacks to being on welfare - you can't travel abroad and you have to, well, humiliate yourself periodically to get some of the "extra luxury" services (i.e. massages) approved. I asked, about the incentives to work? He couldn't come up with anything other than freedom and pride. However; he did say that young educated people have extreme difficulties finding work in most areas and get quickly discouraged and disinterested in looking for work. Even manual labour jobs are not easy to find. Other than good hockey players, Finland is no longer exporting anything of value to the world. It used to export paper and mill products (one of the best quality paper in the world!); but the world demand for paper is weak these days. Finnish construction practices used to be in great demand in other countries, not anymore. High labour costs and payroll burdens made them noncompetitive to the hungry and little-regulated Polish, Turkish and Hungarian contractors. Finland economy has become primarily self-serving. Now, self-serving isolated economies can exist very well but only when the welfare component is minor. In Finland case, this could be a Frankenstein. I remember a conversation with a supplier I had in Sweden 20 years ago. He said that paying 50% in income taxes is fair considering the amount of free Government services they get. I wonder what he'd say today? Free Government-sponsored services are sustainable only to a certain threshold. In Finland, this could be the last year that students don't have to pay for university education. Wait times to see a family doctor are increasing (2-3 weeks). Dental and optical services are no longer free to those who work (still free to those who don't). Something's gotta give. What would it be? Obviously, it starts with the reduced quality of living and services. Also, later pensions and even more taxes. But then there is no more room to fund the welfare recipients, whose numbers are now so significant that they can elect a party to power. Just promise to keep the money flowing and get elected. Next - Greece? Hence; my thought. Real Marxist Socialism is ephemeral; it doesn't exist even in those countries we have all thought of as exceptionally good and civilized examples of it. (Norway could be somewhat of an exception, but it had accumulated such an enormous amount of rainy day fund money saved from oil exploration, it may help it sustain at least some of their socialist policies for many years to come). I have no doubts anymore that the world is going to replace hydrocarbons as a primary energy source in the foreseeable future. With the main source of export disappearing, what would make Canada different from little Finland in terms of being able to support its economy? In fact, it would be even more difficult for us. Geographically, Canada is much larger and more expensive to service. The percentage of its welfare recipients is growing steady and the politicians take note by pitching their platforms to them. The Liberals of today are significantly "lefter" than the Liberals of yesteryear. Plus, many of the First Nation people are getting the gist of what a good lawyer can do for them fighting the Government on every possible compensation issue. If the Canadian politics continue shifting left towards a welfare state, would Finland become Canada's future? __________________ "An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel “To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake Last edited by CaptainYooh; 02-16-2016 at 03:28 PM.