The jinx of the north

[Stabu 0]

I was asking because of your very libertarian views. Coming from Finland, I'm assuming that you had always had health care, your schooling was free or mostly paid for, etc.

Ouh, okay, sorry about that. I thought that your comment was another attempt to "frame me as having a racist agenda" so I replied to it accordingly. But yes, my views are very much at odds with the average Finn. Even the right fraction supporters of the right most party (the National Coalition) support an income tax (although a flat one), government paid but privately owned health care (vs. the current government owned and government paid health care) and university study fees for students coming from outside of Finland (vs. the current system which is free for all with the exception of the Finnish taxpayer).

My libertarian views are rather hard to keep in here, since everyone else is on the left of the average American Democrat. Only the fact that I'm moving to the US has turned most of my friends, half of my extended family and some of my family members against me. They see the US as the big Satan, ruled by a dictator where homeless people roam on the streets and where people die of starvation and easily preventable diseases. The standard view of an American is a greedy capitalist who wants to take over the whole world and who is other vice dumb as hell and a religious nut on top of it. This exaggerates a bit, but it's not that far away from the truth. Most Finns have never been in the US, nor are they interested in going there. Their anti-American views have been adopted from the state owned TV-channel, which shows anti-American documentaries weekly.

Finns are in general very proud of being Finns. In general this means that they don't want foreigners in Finland, but they also don't look well upon those Finns who leave. Leaving Finland, especially for the US, is seen as treason. Finns also take great pride in their achievements and they consider various international indexes (where Finland almost always is in the top three) as a proof of this. Sadly the Finns also view the universal welfare state as one of their achievements. All these views are in the sense understandable since Finland has been occupied by Sweden and Russia for centuries and Finland succeeded in defeating the giant Russia in three wars in a row. Finland also had to pay huge war indemnities to the Russians on top of repairing our own cities after the wars, so building a welfare state has been a lot harder in here than elsewhere.

Criticizing public health care or public education are seen as the biggest taboos of the country and doing so you pay accordingly. As I've been publicly criticizing these for at least the past three years, I've been excluded from many social circles and I know that I'm hated in here because of these two particular opinions. This thus the fact that I never start a political discussion (especially not offline), I'm polite and I don't get offended when people call me names (such as a fascist for example). Mostly I just point out that I'm neither fond of nationalism or socialism, especially when they are united under one banner, since these are claims that you can't leave unanswered (I like it a lot more when people just call me an idiot or ignorant or equal). Still, I plan on continuing on promoting individual liberty and the free markets since it is my (mostly unpaid) halftime job. I think that the chances of turning Finland around are quite good. You just need to focus on the long term and use persuading common sense arguments for your stance. Most people don't like when cornerstones of their identity or culture are being questioned and the Finns aren't any different.

And you're right. I've always had free healthcare and free education and benefited from them tremendously in the sense that it was free for me and I'm not staying in here to pay them back via high taxes. I'm ridiculously over educated since I've studied ten languages, I have two master's degrees, almost three bachelor's degrees and I'm going for my first doctorate. This has been absolutely free for me and it's the only reason why I have studied so much. If you needed to pay for it, like I have constantly argued for, I would have conducted far less university studies - if any (in general I think that degrees are overvalued and the level of university studies is exaggerated). I also happen to be even more privileged since I belong to the Swedish speaking minority, which is considered upper class in here. This is because the Swedish speakers tend to be wealthier, have better social contacts and are bi-lingual (speaking fluent Swedish and Finnish). This stereotype is also true for my part: my grandparents are even old enough to have enjoyed some privileges of the nobles. The point is not to brag but the opposite. If anyone wants to clime all my arguments as "worthless" because I don't "understand the common man" or "the underprivileged man", well, here you go. This is the most perfect ad hominem you can get. In this sense I'm actually jealous to the greatly underprivileged libertarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is an ex-Muslim Black Somali female, since she has the opportunity of saying similar views to mine and she won't be dismissed just because of her origins.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Aah, white devil.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

and finland makes some great rifles too, sako

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And you're right. I've always had free healthcare and free education and benefited from them tremendously in the sense that it was free for me and I'm not staying in here to pay them back via high taxes. I'm ridiculously over educated since I've studied ten languages, I have two master's degrees, almost three bachelor's degrees and I'm going for my first doctorate. This has been absolutely free for me and it's the only reason why I have studied so much. If you needed to pay for it, like I have constantly argued for, I would have conducted far less university studies - if any (in general I think that degrees are overvalued and the level of university studies is exaggerated).

I find that odd...as to how you arrived at that POV, considering you're a shining example of it working.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

And you're right. I've always had free healthcare and free education and benefited from them tremendously in the sense that it was free for me and I'm not staying in here to pay them back via high taxes. I'm ridiculously over educated since I've studied ten languages, I have two master's degrees, almost three bachelor's degrees and I'm going for my first doctorate. This has been absolutely free for me and it's the only reason why I have studied so much. If you needed to pay for it, like I have constantly argued for, I would have conducted far less university studies - if any (in general I think that degrees are overvalued and the level of university studies is exaggerated).

I find that odd...as to how you arrived at that POV, considering you're a shining example of it working.

not necesarily odd steven. he may have born many of the benefits, but he may be thinking of what value to his society. for one person to reap the generous benefits provided by his country is one hting, but for it to be given to all comes at no low cost to all. so, he may be concluding that the costs will eventually otweigh the benefits. Thus, the rules should be changed to make the individual more efficient at choosing one's studies.

either way, i find it very interesting indeed.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Stabu 0]

I find that odd...as to how you arrived at that POV, considering you're a shining example of it working.

Well it depends what your objective is. If your objective is to get a population that is as highly educated as possible you will naturally succeed in it by subsidizing education as much as possible. If your goal is to have a population who know things which are useful to them or to the country's economic performance, I'm highly sceptical of this system.

Our current system is highly flawed. It's sad that you pointed out me as a "shining example of it working" since one reason why I've studied so much has been to show that the system doesn't work. Our current subsidised system has produced many problems, such as:

- The system is a wealth transformation from the poor to the rich, since internal studies of the system have constantly showed that people from the high middle and upper class get in a lot easier and more often than those coming from the lower middle or lower class (class in terms of socio-economic status). Yes, it's true that no-one is scared away because of the high price in education, but the system itself still produces an empirical result, which shows that it's harder to get in if you're poor. The American system produces far more equal results, especially when the affirmative action privileges are taken into account.

- There is too much demand for free university education and too little supply (this is standard economics regarding anything which is subsidized). Thus the average Finn who begins his university studies is 25 years old. He graduates finally at the age of 31. This is almost ten years after his American contemporary. I've just turned 25, but I'm an exception, not the norm. Many Finns, especially those who are seeking entrance into the fields of law, economics or medicine, study even up to ten years the entrance literature alone - it becomes de facto their full time job. In Finland you don't enter the universities via SAT or GER-tests; you enter the universities via memorizing between three to five books from sentence to sentence. These books change almost yearly, but they always deal with the same basic stuff.

- The system contributes to our high taxation (but it's not the cause of it, every industrial country in the world could afford such a system, if they wouldn't pay for tens of other wasteful systems at the same time). Finland hast the fourth highest taxes in the world after Sweden, Belgium and Denmark (in this order). This system has produced a problem called brain drain. Finland is among the top losers of brains in the whole world, since 1/8 of all university graduates (most in the fields of engineering, science and economics) flee the taxes and never return. This problem is so serve that the politicians are seriously debating about reducing the free education to one master's degree per person or reducing it into five free years of study per person.

- Currently people obtain multiple degrees that they clearly don't need. I personally only know of one American who has obtained two master's degrees in the US, but I can easily name a hundred of such Finns (who have, naturally, obtained their degrees in Finland). My personal example should already make it clear that there's no way I can seriously benefit from having two masters plus more degrees. In here I know people who have up to six master's! I've also heard of a Finn with four doctorates (he runs a renewable energy company). Having two masters in here is very common, having three masters isn't that rare either. When people obtain multiple degrees it means that other people can't study, because there's no room for them, and it's in everyone's incentives to study as much as possible (since it's free). The problem gets worse when study places are rewarded based on who does best on the tests and these study places used to be for life. Once you won one, you could never lose it unless you graduated. I have personally, for example, right to get six master's degrees from two universities (I've so far obtained two). Thus I don't only block two people from getting a master's with my current master's degrees, but I block six people. I know people who have over ten study rights to master's degrees. Almost everyone I know have at least two of these study rights. The reason for this is because if you get one degree out but never quit studying you will get extra bonuses as a "student" such as cheaper miniloans, cheaper almost queueless health care (our public system has quite bad queues especially regarding dental care - you can't get your teeth checked unless you wait for a year, many wait two), cheaper lunches and cheaper housing. This system has been mostly changed by imposing laws such as: you can't accept more than one study place a year and you need to graduate in five years from each study place, if you don't, you will lose it. Furthermore they've been thinking about restricting the number of study places you can accept in your lifetime to like three or equal.

Our system isn't simply that great in the end. It's wonderful for those who get in when young, study quickly and can move out of the country, but it's not as great for everyone else. The main reason why I oppose the system is because I oppose socialism. I think I can handle my life well enough without any help from the government and I trust that my fellow citizens are at least equally capable regarding their own lives.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I find that odd...as to how you arrived at that POV, considering you're a shining example of it working.

Well it depends what your objective is. If your objective is to get a population that is as highly educated as possible you will naturally succeed in it by subsidizing education as much as possible. If your goal is to have a population who know things which are useful to them or to the country's economic performance, I'm highly sceptical of this system.

Our current system is highly flawed. It's sad that you pointed out me as a "shining example of it working" since one reason why I've studied so much has been to show that the system doesn't work. Our current subsidised system has produced many problems, such as:

I think that's at the heart of your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you place value or higher value on what can be turned into a commodity. It was Oscar Wilde who said, "The cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3] and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4] According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland

They must be doing something right.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I find that odd...as to how you arrived at that POV, considering you're a shining example of it working.

Well it depends what your objective is. If your objective is to get a population that is as highly educated as possible you will naturally succeed in it by subsidizing education as much as possible. If your goal is to have a population who know things which are useful to them or to the country's economic performance, I'm highly sceptical of this system.

Our current system is highly flawed. It's sad that you pointed out me as a "shining example of it working" since one reason why I've studied so much has been to show that the system doesn't work. Our current subsidised system has produced many problems, such as:

- The system is a wealth transformation from the poor to the rich, since internal studies of the system have constantly showed that people from the high middle and upper class get in a lot easier and more often than those coming from the lower middle or lower class (class in terms of socio-economic status). Yes, it's true that no-one is scared away because of the high price in education, but the system itself still produces an empirical result, which shows that it's harder to get in if you're poor. The American system produces far more equal results, especially when the affirmative action privileges are taken into account.

- There is too much demand for free university education and too little supply (this is standard economics regarding anything which is subsidized). Thus the average Finn who begins his university studies is 25 years old. He graduates finally at the age of 31. This is almost ten years after his American contemporary. I've just turned 25, but I'm an exception, not the norm. Many Finns, especially those who are seeking entrance into the fields of law, economics or medicine, study even up to ten years the entrance literature alone - it becomes de facto their full time job. In Finland you don't enter the universities via SAT or GER-tests; you enter the universities via memorizing between three to five books from sentence to sentence. These books change almost yearly, but they always deal with the same basic stuff.

- The system contributes to our high taxation (but it's not the cause of it, every industrial country in the world could afford such a system, if they wouldn't pay for tens of other wasteful systems at the same time). Finland hast the fourth highest taxes in the world after Sweden, Belgium and Denmark (in this order). This system has produced a problem called brain drain. Finland is among the top losers of brains in the whole world, since 1/8 of all university graduates (most in the fields of engineering, science and economics) flee the taxes and never return. This problem is so serve that the politicians are seriously debating about reducing the free education to one master's degree per person or reducing it into five free years of study per person.

- Currently people obtain multiple degrees that they clearly don't need. I personally only know of one American who has obtained two master's degrees in the US, but I can easily name a hundred of such Finns (who have, naturally, obtained their degrees in Finland). My personal example should already make it clear that there's no way I can seriously benefit from having two masters plus more degrees. In here I know people who have up to six master's! I've also heard of a Finn with four doctorates (he runs a renewable energy company). Having two masters in here is very common, having three masters isn't that rare either. When people obtain multiple degrees it means that other people can't study, because there's no room for them, and it's in everyone's incentives to study as much as possible (since it's free). The problem gets worse when study places are rewarded based on who does best on the tests and these study places used to be for life. Once you won one, you could never lose it unless you graduated. I have personally, for example, right to get six master's degrees from two universities (I've so far obtained two). Thus I don't only block two people from getting a master's with my current master's degrees, but I block six people. I know people who have over ten study rights to master's degrees. Almost everyone I know have at least two of these study rights. The reason for this is because if you get one degree out but never quit studying you will get extra bonuses as a "student" such as cheaper mini loans, cheaper almost queueless health care (our public system has quite bad queues especially regarding dental care - you can't get your teeth checked unless you wait for a year, many wait two), cheaper lunches and cheaper housing. This system has been mostly changed by imposing laws such as: you can't accept more than one study place a year and you need to graduate in five years from each study place, if you don't, you will lose it. Furthermore they've been thinking about restricting the number of study places you can accept in your lifetime to like three or equal.

Our system isn't simply that great in the end. It's wonderful for those who get in when young, study quickly and can move out of the country, but it's not as great for everyone else. The main reason why I oppose the system is because I oppose socialism. I think I can handle my life well enough without any help from the government and I trust that my fellow citizens are at least equally capable regarding their own lives.

You are really killing the wanna-be socialists here. To have someone that is obviously well educated, lived the dream that they wish we had here and then listen to you say it isn't the utopia that they all hope it will be is a real eye opener. It seems that Finland has taken the idea of the government provides everything to it's furthest limit. While someone on the outside looking in may see something they may want, to have you come in and say the things you are saying must be a real kick in the gut for some. I welcome you to the "great Satan" of the USA.

Edited September 6, 2007 by GaryC

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

You are really killing the wanna-be socialists here. To have someone that is obviously well educated, lived the dream that they wish we had here and then listen to you say it isn't the utopia that they all hope it will be is a real eye opener. It seems that Finland has taken the idea of the government provides everything to it's furthest limit. While someone on the outside looking in may see something they may want, to have you come in and say the things you are saying must be a real kick in the gut for some. I welcome you to the "great Satan" of the USA.

i'm still lmao

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, it's true that no-one is scared away because of the high price in education, but the system itself still produces an empirical result, which shows that it's harder to get in if you're poor. The American system produces far more equal results, especially when the affirmative action privileges are taken into account.

Care to back that up somehow? TY

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are really killing the wanna-be socialists here. To have someone that is obviously well educated, lived the dream that they wish we had here and then listen to you say it isn't the utopia that they all hope it will be is a real eye opener. It seems that Finland has taken the idea of the government provides everything to it's furthest limit. While someone on the outside looking in may see something they may want, to have you come in and say the things you are saying must be a real kick in the gut for some. I welcome you to the "great Satan" of the USA.

With all due respect, brother Gary - calling me a wanna-be socialist is pretty low-brow. I suppose I could call you a wanna-be fascist based on many things that you support, but I'd prefer we stick to debating on substance rather than low-brow name-calling. Waddya say?

As for Finland...perhaps you didn't catch this.

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3] and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4] According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland

They must be doing something right. wink.gif

[mawilson 2,133]

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3] and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4] According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

Sixth happiest? I doubt it. Finland has one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world

(Japan is #1, Belgium is #2, Finland is #3)

[GaryC 7]

You are really killing the wanna-be socialists here. To have someone that is obviously well educated, lived the dream that they wish we had here and then listen to you say it isn't the utopia that they all hope it will be is a real eye opener. It seems that Finland has taken the idea of the government provides everything to it's furthest limit. While someone on the outside looking in may see something they may want, to have you come in and say the things you are saying must be a real kick in the gut for some. I welcome you to the "great Satan" of the USA.

With all due respect, brother Gary - calling me a wanna-be socialist is pretty low-brow. I suppose I could call you a wanna-be fascist based on many things that you support, but I'd prefer we stick to debating on substance rather than low-brow name-calling. Whaddya say?

As for Finland...perhaps you didn't catch this.

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3] and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4] According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland

They must be doing something right. wink.gif

I didn't think I named names did I? It looks like you are identifying yourself in that category.

As to the "sixth happiest" country I would say that's pretty subjective and really does not mean much in this discussion. I mean really, how do you judge "happiness? Some of the things they tout as "the freest nation" I wouldn't want here. So to me they really are not the "freest". Everything in that study is subjective.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3] and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4] According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

Sixth happiest? I doubt it. Finland has one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world

(Japan is #1, Belgium is #2, Finland is #3)

hmmm two of the top three rank high in taxes. a connection?

[Stabu 0]

I think that's at the heart of your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you place value or higher value on what can be turned into a commodity. It was Oscar Wilde who said, "The cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Well, that's the quote associated with economists in a jokingly fashion . The main issue is this: why should the government decide an ultimate objective for the lives of its citizens. Education is just one of these issues, in the same manner you could build up a government program subsidizing fancy pants and thus making sure that Finns have the fanciest pants of them all. In general I think that private individuals should decide what they want to do with their own lives and their own money.

Finland is eleventh on the United Nations' Human Development Index[3]

As I already pointed out that Finland is the top of most indexes I won't spend much time discussing them. Still, the UN HDI is a useless index. It was made to rank third world countries. Of the index 40% is based on child mortality rates another 40% is based on life expectancy and the last 20% is based on income per capita. No wonder all industrial countries are on top but their ranking is meaningless.

and ranked as the sixth happiest nation in the world.[4]

This is also a meaningless rank, since the best way to increase happiness on this index would be drop coins from a helicopter on the street, since finding a coin increases a person's happiness on average one point on a scale of zero to ten.

According to the World Audit Democracy profile, Finland is the freest nation in the world in terms of civil liberties, freedom of the press, low corruption levels and political rights.[5] Finland is rated the sixth most peaceful country in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit,[6] and since 1945, Finland has been at peace, adopting neutrality in wartime.

Great, great, great and simply wonderful .

They must be doing something right.

Well I didn't say that Finland was a poor place to live in. Of course it isn't. Finland is an industrial country where people enjoy large liberties. Finns enjoy among the most secure property rights in the whole world and among the worlds free'est economy.

My earlier reply to you was about education alone. I wasn't even trying to discuss everything between heaven and earth .