Poor Pundy has been almost completely neutered by the recent election results. One kinda feels sorry for him.

I laughed out loud right here. I’m not afraid to admit it.

as it can only survive by freeriding on non-welfare state economies.

If by “freeriding on non-welfare state economies” you mean “hawking its wares at an expo”, then sure, you’ve got us bang to rights. The Finnish economy is absolutely depended on Bloodpit’s album sales. Good call.

Incidentally, do the various subsidies the US pays out mean that non-welfare states are economic failures that can only survive by “freeriding”? Interested anarcho-syndicalist readers want to know.

Goth kids form a multi-million dollar marketplace.

Bless their black socks.

The fact that they cannot get product from one particular source because a foreign government uses taxes to subsidize another source

It’s true: Finland prevents goth kids from buying Marilyn Manson CDs. Go to any record store in America and ask for the new My Chemical Romance record. A heavily accented blonde guy wearing a standard model “Suomi” track suit will emerge from the backroom, abduct you, and brainwash you into voting for the Democrats.

Ideally, but not quite in practise, yet.

Guffaw.

Strong economies don’t bother with any of that “foreign trade” nonsense.

All economies are interested in more business, even that of Finland’s. Which is exactly why the welfare state is a failure, as it can only survive by freeriding on non-welfare state economies.

Selling CDs to American goth kids is highly exploitative.

Goth kids form a multi-million dollar marketplace. The fact that they cannot get product from one particular source because a foreign government uses taxes to subsidize another source is not only distorting the marketplace, but also disrupting the freedom of choice for those kids interested in that particular cultural phenomenon: i.e. “here’s music for you, brought to you by some government”.

The US and EU are against subsidies.

Ideally, but not quite in practise, yet. For the most part, the US is the leader in the scrapping of subsidies, followed by the EU. However, there’s so much more work to be done.

Why is American free-market, less-taxed capital needed in a Finnish social welfare state? Doesn’t a social welfare state draw enough capital from its own taxed economic activities? If not, doesn’t it say something about the international viability of such states?

Strong economies don’t bother with any of that “foreign trade” nonsense.

In other words, doesn’t it mean social welfare states need to have an exploitative relationship with those states that are not social welfare states?

Selling CDs to American goth kids is highly exploitative.

It is a form of subsidy, which should be illegal, as it falls into the kinds of unfair trade practices condemned by the US and EU alike.

The US and EU are against subsidies.

On one hand, America can argue that it’s against the principle of fair competition for governments to support industries. Yet, on the other hand, America protects its own market by imposing high VISA fees.

I’m not going to say that it should be the Finnish government’s job to promote music acts, etc. But, in this case, one side-effect seems to be that the Finnish government is leveling the international playing field.

Are there other details to consider?

That ain’t right for the US government to do that! But I guess with all the money they make from touring in the US, I guess it’s worth it for them.

Even with the high visa fees for bands in the US and no visa fees for bands visiting Finland, it’s still a hell of a lot cheaper to see them in the states than in Finland

Heh, good point!

To say that ABBA owes their success to the Finnish government is kinda insulting to the band. Their talent is what made them. And I’d give #2 credit to their record label ..and that was back before the internet.

Completely dissimilarly on the other hand, Finland takes no visa fees at all for foreign performers who come to play.

The whole idea with trade equalization is that governments stop pumping subsidies into their domestic industries, and instead let them compete with the rest of the world on an equal basis. Most of the wealth of the developed world is based on it.

As to trade missions, yes, these band subsidies are small enough to be equal to monies spent on trade missions, which are really not subsidies. Yet you’ll never see US bands receiving any such government monies on their concert tours throughout the world.

The alternative argument would probably be that these subsidies are actually not subsidies, but really forms of cultural support in a world dominated by American media. But I find it strange that bands that play American-style rock music, and most of the time even sing in English, are supposedly preserving the indigenous cultures of their native countries. So that argument would eventually fall flat.

7. JustenIt have been the critical point to someone, that made some people to invest in Finland (stock market) or visit here (tourism). Or Bloodpit might make it big there, which would mean more taxes from record companies and fans coming to Finland (as they do now for HIM).

But why is it exactly necessary for Finland to advertise in the US? Why is American free-market, less-taxed capital needed in a Finnish social welfare state? Doesn’t a social welfare state draw enough capital from its own taxed economic activities? If not, doesn’t it say something about the international viability of such states? In other words, doesn’t it mean social welfare states need to have an exploitative relationship with those states that are not social welfare states?

8. Kristian However, Finnpundit asks why we are still dependent on relatively wealthy (that is, relative to us here in Europe) American consumers. After all, we have 400M people here in Europe. Also, do we have these same programs implemented in Asia?

Exactly.

9.Finnish bands want to become big in the states, and that tells that they couldn’t exist otherwise?

They can exist otherwise, but why do they want to exist big in the States?

12. Justen But as America innovates, creates and maintains its products outside its borders, it’s pretty nasty to point fingers when other countries try to do so too. American products dominate shelves in stores, competing with finnish goods. Globalisation works both ways, and I’m not sure if everyone has understood it.

It really doesn’t work both ways. On the one hand, there is the US, which winds up taking all the wealth it creates and pumping it right back out to the rest of the world. On the other hand, there is the EU, which takes the wealth it earns from the world and burns it up in easy living standards and cushy lifestyles just for themselves.

And when you take American free markets away from the equation, EU welfare states would collapse, while American markets could survive very well without the EU.

Welfare states are the big wastrels of the global trade equation. They simply take and take, and give very little in return (except for paltry foreign aid, to keep some African kleptocrats on their side, but even that is only to cover their stingy motives in holding on to welfare state subsidies).

But, to return to the bands, there is absolutely no reason European governments should be spending money like this in the States. It is a form of subsidy, which should be illegal, as it falls into the kinds of unfair trade practices condemned by the US and EU alike. To exclude cultural venues from economic considerations is a big mistake, since it is obvious that the goal of these bands (awkward as they are) is not to promote cultural awareness, but to make it big in the most successful consumer society in the world.

These bands, in the end, represent a form of dumping, whereby products are dumped on another marketplace at a lower price than what they cost to produce. It is an illegal ploy often used by those who simply can’t compete openly in the marketplace, without subsidies.

In any case, of course, no one is going to do much about it, as the amounts are so small. But chalk it up as one more instance where American benevolence in opening its markets up and sharing its wealth with the rest of the world is quite established.

This blog should become a place where Pundy is forced to write about random topics, just so readers get to marvel at how he is able to switch to ranting about the evils of welfare states, no matter what the ostensible subject.

“Kärpät and HPK are the two best teams in the SM-Liiga this season [...] But clearly the welfare state will put an end to that.”

“Two delphins drowned after getting stuck in fishing nets [...] We can thank the retarding influence of the welfare state!”

“Jyväshyvä makes delicious chocolate chip cookies [...] THE WELFARE STATE WANTS TO LIQUEFY MY BRAIN!”

Make it happen, Phil.

In Sweden, the welfare state has always been a partnership between government and industry. The bigger the business, the bigger the stake the government has in funding it. Music export in Sweden is a huge business.

One interesting aspect is that the NYT article takes up the problems of the state giving money to badly-behaving people who might give a bad picture of that country abroad.

After all, with Swedish music export industry it’s been quite easy. The huge worldwide success of ABBA was quite the opposite to rock stars behaving badly. Swedish pop stars have reinforced the image of Swedes as well-behaved and government money spent on them has not led to the problems that the article indicates. I think Finnish international stars are just as ready to take on the roles of ambassadors.

The article points out that some US stars are critical of the government. But many people who have a favorable view of the government as an abstract entity can have a negative view of a particular government such as the Bush Administration. I’m not saying US rock stars are particularly politically conscious, I’m just suggesting perhaps some of those who pen anti-Republican songs might very well be those very stars who have a favorable view of government intervention and who could truly appreciate the government subsidizing their craft.

Right cause Sweden’s music success is all thanks to government spending rather than talent.

Thanks to the internet, if music is good, it’ll get heard and bands will become successful. For way too long, music execs would decide what’s popular music and what’s not. Now there jobs have less and less importance, but looks like the state will take over and decide what music is good and should be exported.