Finland - A Prototype of Canada's Future?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And you certainly don't have to be against any of those things to express concerns about their long-term viability under the enormous demographic pressures they're faced with.

Demographics are going to affect any kind of economy. Framing it as an issue where there is too much money spent on social programs is just finding a reason to do what has already been ideologically identified as what should be done.

Not that I disagree with the idea that solutions have to be found. However, "social programs" like welfare or unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the problem of an aging population. Your average employable 60 year old isn't "retired" and sitting at home collecting EI and having welfare babies.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

{SNIP}

I think strategic government interference (invisible hand) is a good thing, especially when the people voting the government in are generally well informed/educated. People were really involved in politics there and really keep their political parties accountable.

{SNIP}

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of "invisible hand". Government interference is a very visible hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Itse

Very little of the above is accurate, and most of it is flat out untrue.

Two guys arguing opposite side and no verifiable facts presented.
If youre going to call someone out, then give us some links with concrete facts to support what you are saying.
For example, provide stats on manufacturing and export. This isnt a grey area. Those are verifiable numbers.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Not that I disagree with the idea that solutions have to be found. However, "social programs" like welfare or unemployment benefits have nothing to do with the problem of an aging population. Your average employable 60 year old isn't "retired" and sitting at home collecting EI and having welfare babies.

Health care spending threatens to devour the budget of every province in Canada. Combine that with stagnation in government revenues you see with an ageing population, and all government programs are going to be squeezed.

[peter12]

They have everything to do with an aging population!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Health care spending threatens to devour the budget of every province in Canada. Combine that with stagnation in government revenues you see with an ageing population, and all government programs are going to be squeezed.

That's nice, but still has nothing to do with CaptainYooh's fearless attack on the socialism that is even now relegating Canada to economic catastrophe. Health care costs are going up exponentially in the USA as well, is the private side of their system noticeably less expensive than the public? Does the money for private health care not also eventually come out of the citizens' pockets?

If 25% of your GDP is spent (just as an example) on health care, it doesn't matter much whether it's government or private money, it's going to be a drag on the economy. Saying "well government can't afford it, we need to cut back!" is sloganeering and nothing more.

Older people need more health care. There is no option where you keep the same level of service and spend the same, or less, when the population is aging. Full stop. The debate should have nothing to do with how the system is paid for, but which we prefer: spending more, or getting worse service.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Health care spending threatens to devour the budget of every province in Canada. Combine that with stagnation in government revenues you see with an ageing population, and all government programs are going to be squeezed.

This health care spending needs to occur whether or not the public sector or peoples personal wealth cover it.

The alternative is we start defunding certain interventions and turn them over to the private sector. Essentially we place a price tag on peoples lives. This most definitely needs to be done but the burden of healthcare exists whether or not it is a public or private resource paying for it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's nice, but still has nothing to do with CaptainYooh's fearless attack on the socialism that is even now relegating Canada to economic catastrophe. Health care costs are going up exponentially in the USA as well, is the private side of their system noticeably less expensive than the public? Does the money for private health care not also eventually come out of the citizens' pockets?

If 25% of your GDP is spent (just as an example) on health care, it doesn't matter much whether it's government or private money, it's going to be a drag on the economy. Saying "well government can't afford it, we need to cut back!" is sloganeering and nothing more.

Older people need more health care. There is no option where you keep the same level of service and spend the same, or less, when the population is aging. Full stop. The debate should have nothing to do with how the system is paid for, but which we prefer: spending more, or getting worse service.

Did you seriously just arrive on Earth?

Caveat - I am a full supporter of welfare entitlements, and I believe that we need to reform these services so that we can keep them!

[peter12]

People don't seem to understand that public services are funded through taxing economic surplus. That surplus depends upon productive labour, and as populations age, that productivity begins to decrease. Look at Japan!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Two guys arguing opposite side and no verifiable facts presented.

http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/0...ive-economies/

The very first link I found when I typed "top ten competitive economies world" into Google. Notice where Finland is. Maybe you should check this Google thing out.

PS: I also hate when people complain about other people using words they don't know. It takes less than 5 seconds to look something up for yourself. Then you know, and you've learned a new word. Or you could just whine and remain semi-literate.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Did you seriously just arrive on Earth?

Do you come from a planet where you don't understand context? Do you disagree that whether you spend 100 billion dollars of public or private money on health care, you're still spending that money and it can't be spent somewhere else?

[CliffFletcher]

Honestly, look at the delivery of social services in New Brunswick versus Alberta. When the population gets older and economic growth declines, social services decline. This happens regardless of the ideological stripes of whoever is in government.

So the reason to watch Finland (and other ageing European countries) isn't to wag our finger at socialism, but to observe how other countries further up the demographic timeline handle a traumatic change.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Do you come from a planet where you don't understand context? Do you disagree that whether you spend 100 billion dollars of public or private money on health care, you're still spending that money and it can't be spent somewhere else?

Well, you have something called efficiencies. Besides, the overall issue is where will this money come from - not where you want to spend it.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Canadians have too many feelings.

sorry

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Went to Finland once, am expert.

I met a Finnish chick at a party once so now let me extol upon you the socioeconomic scenarios that plague this fantastic Scandinavian state!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

I met a Finnish chick at a party once so now let me extol upon you the socioeconomic scenarios that plague this fantastic Scandinavian state!

As an aside, you are a lucky dude.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Locke

I met a Finnish chick at a party once so now let me extol upon you the socioeconomic scenarios that plague this fantastic Scandinavian state!

I danced with Jyrki Lumme's girlfriend at an International House party at UBC. Well done Jyrki, way out of my league.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by peter12

As an aside, you are a lucky dude.

Agreed.

Some stereotypes are there for a reason.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Itse

This is an extreme example.

Your friend is essentially the biggest loser of the Finnish taxation system, getting a big salary but probably no other incentives and unable to set up a company through which he could sell his services to his employer. ...
...I drive a cab and pay around total 28% income tax, which I don't think is too bad.

Even though you meant it in a different (and likely, derogatory) way, ironically, you are correct. Higher income earners that work on salary are the biggest losers in a progressive taxation system, be it in Canada or Finland. A person working on salary above $80K and not willing to look for an elaborate tax reduction/evasion scheme will pay more progressively. I knew someone who worked for his own consulting company in Cyprus, which paid him a small salary in Canada while also paying most of his living expenses. Yeah, it's possible to reduce one's taxes when you have the means to do it.

I don't want to copy quotes from all of your posts, it will take too much time. Honestly, I wish Finland well but could care less about Finland's economy. However; I disagree with your assessment of Finland's economic health. Comparative to Canada, prices are very much higher on everything I have seen - food, consumer goods, services. Consumption taxes are extremely high (24% or so). Income taxes are high. Debt/capita is also huge, much higher than Canadian ( here ). Social welfare quality is declining, according to what I've been told by a source I have no reason to doubt.

I also strongly disagree on your definition of communism. Common ownership of production means is just one of the component methods of achieving the overarching goal stated in my original post. There are other components: developing a "new person" with ingrained communist ideology, world revolution, etc. USSR and China nationalized and owned ALL of means of production immediately after their respective revolutions. Private property was declared illegal (except for personal property). That didn't help them achieve the communist goal. This is still the case in N.Korea; perhaps, they will one day.

In true socialism everyone who physically can work, MUST work (contribute). Unemployment-at-will was a punishable crime. This obligation supported the fundamental socialist principle - "from each in accordance with their ability, to each in accordance with their contribution". Welfare principle is a foray into communism, because it allows for people NOT to work if they don't want to. We are not talking about children, disabled and elderly; only about willful unemployment. And entitlement to welfare is the exact reason why communism remains a utopia. It is rooted in someone (ruling government) trusted to determine what everyone in the country needs.

The intent of my post was to comment on former capitalist economies sliding into being partially-communist economies and skipping the true socialist economic stage. It was also to encourage a discussion on whether or not the potential decline of hydrocarbons as a primary source of energy would make Canada slide towards the version of welfare state that is observed in countries like Finland, where the above-noted slide is pronounced.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Went to Finland once, am expert.

MMF: Just like a pigeon. Flying around and crapping all over the forum.