141, the magic number for agriculture in Finland?
@ 8:35 pm 
Canola field, source
141 is the number of the Article of Accession to the European Union that keeps Finland’s farming subsidies in place. Finland is pretty eager, it seems, to hold onto the subsidies. It is widely believed here that farming in Finland will not succeed without the subsidies. The subsidies for sugar beet farming were recently abolished, and the result was one of the two large Finnish sugar factories were closed. There is one left in Säkylä, and its future is also in question. Salo was the location of the other one. I wonder what they will do with the huge factory sitting on the hill there in Salo… It’s a good location for a theme park, in a town where you can actually find parking located also near Turku, which has no theme park, whereas Tampere does.
Sweden and Denmark are fighting against Article 141, according to the above linked article, saying that it gives Finland an unfair advantage. Well, SkÃ¥ne is in an altogether different climate zone from Southern Finland, and that’s where most of Sweden’s farming occurs. There are plenty of trees that grow there that don’t grow at all or very little in the wild in Finland, such as Ash, Hornbeam, Elm, Oak, etc. SkÃ¥ne doesn’t even get much snow in the winter. It is the same story with Denmark. But there is am economic bubble in Southern Finland that is just asking to be popped though. Why are fields in a place this far North selling for as much as 12,000 Euros a hectare? In Sweden, they can be around 2,000 a hectare for better producing land. The subsidies are what cause it. Or is it the threat of loosing the subsidies that is causing farmers to make their farming operations as large as possible, thus buying up all the fields and driving up the prices.
Finland is as far north as Alaska. Southern Alaska has a similar climate as Southern Finland, perhaps a bit colder. It is also warmed and buffered by the sea. They don’t bother trying go grow crops there like they do here, but rather import the necessary food from Canada and the the lower 48 states. On the other hand, Finland has an obsession - understandably so - to be as independent as possible. The wars and periods of rationing are still there vividly in many peoples’ memories. But some claim that farmers in Finland are doing too well, with their massive amounts of new, top-of-the-line equipment. So should we do away with the 141 subsidies? Who knows what the results will be.
If Finland fights back and keeps the subsidies, it would be immoral to try to sell the subsidized products outside of Finland. Otherwise, it could be viewed as dumping or giving an unfair advantage to Finnish agriculture. It also stands loosing its good ties with the Commission. Finland has been a good trooper in the EU, following the rules as much as possible. (except with personal data) Or could Finland do with a good marketing strategy and market unsubsidized food for a more expensive price, and use the arguments that Finland is cleaner. I can say from personal metal detecting experience that Southern Finnish fields have very little metal scrap in them, such as lead bullets or shrapnel. Go with a metal detector through farming areas in Germany, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands and see what you turn up. Lead and other metals gradually leech into the soil. Central Europe is also much more densely populated and more polluted. For these reasons, I would personally rather eat Finnish wheat or rye any day. Well, we should know if Finland gets to keep the subsidies in about a year or so.
Wow, you have high food prices.
Then to boot, you give some tax money away to Farmers, thus in effect making that food price even higher.
So, can someone tell me why? Why do you want higher and then higher food prices?
Did I get it right?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
Yes, it’s true: Finland does have very high food prices despite the huge amount of taxes paid for subsidies. In fact, Finland has ultra-high prices in every consumer price category, perhaps aside from mobile phone rates. In my opinion, the whole Ponzi scheme just isn’t worth it anymore.
Why not concentrate on beef, fish and poultry production? Those industries stand greater chance of supporting themselves without the need for subsidies. Vegetables and grains can always be imported.
Comment by Kristian — Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I saw a small plastic dish of pasta carbonara at the supermarket a few days ago. It was the kind you heat up in the microwave. They wanted 7-euros for it!
At most, it was worth about 2,50-euros. If you ask me, there’s something wrong with pricing in Finland.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
No, Finland hasn’t been a good boy on other EC policies either. For instance, they implemented EC 2003/109 one year _after_ the deadline and, even then, found ways to make the changes far more restrictive than the directive implied - the same way that they did with Lex Karpela, by pretending that they are just following orders, despite evidences that other EU states also following orders nonetheless came up with far less drastic changes to their laws. Ditto for abolishing taxation on cars bought within EU: they circumvented EC and the European Cort (after 2 people won against Finland on this matter) by renaming the tax “car inspection fee”.
Comment by Martin-Éric — Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
The decision on 141 has already been made (at least a week ago now). We keep it, but in a gradually reducing amount.
I know a few farmers, and they are certainly not doing well economically. Since EU membership, smaller farms have had it very tough. At least the ones I know of.
Winter - The US government also heavily subsidises the AMerican agriculural sector. Didn’t a whole round of WTO talks colapse because they refused to lessen their subsudies?
Comment by JG — Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
No, Finland hasn’t been a good boy on other EC policies either.
No EU country has a 100% record. If you compare Finland’s adherance to enforcing European law and directives, it’s far better than many of the founder members - e.g. France and Italy, who are near the top of the list when it comes to court action to force them to comply (which they then often still ignore!). I think it’s actually Greece that is the top of the “bad” list.
I have always found it ironic that the most Eurosceptic countries (e.g. the Scandinavian members + UK) are amongst the best at actually enacting and enfocing EU law!
Comment by JG — Sun, Dec 9th, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
1. Finland is a parasite. EU farm subsidies are high enough. There’s now way that Finland should receive EXTRA subsidies over and above what is paid out to French farmers
2. Finnish subsidised products must not be sold outside the EU because this would definitely constitute dumping
3. The average Finn needs an economics lesson. If wheat can be imported for lower cost than it can be produced domestically, it makes sense for Finland to import. David Ricardo wrote about the principle of comparative advantage a couple of centuries ago
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 12:15 am
farm subsidies keep the 3rd world poor. They can grow food, sell it to us, and become nations, with no need for our hand outs.
Instead, we keep them poor, feed them some surplus food, and say what wonderful people were all are.
Yep, we all love the status. Keep them poor, all for national pride, in something called “self sustainment”.
What a bunch of jerks the modern west is.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 1:20 am
You stated in reference to Alaska that “They don’t bother trying go grow crops there like they do here, but rather import the necessary food from Canada and the the lower 48 states”. This is not wholly correct. In the 1930’s there was a US government sponsored program that let farmers from the Northern Midwest homestead land to create an agricultural colony about 40 miles north of Anchorage in the Matanuska Valley. This valley is now the center of the agriculture that currently exists in Alaska. This region offers advantages that are unique in that the soil is very fertile, comprising of glacial silt, and you all are aware long summer days which are great for the short growing season. The Mat-Su valley (short for Matanuska- Susitna) is often in the 70’s and 80’s F as well during the summer, so it is both warm and sunny.
I think the main reason agriculture isn’t that big in Alaska is the lack of flat land and accessibility to the land that is farm-able. With that said though, it’s actually quite easy to get fresh vegetables in the summers here, at least for the majority of the population that lives in Anchorage and Mat-Su(about 300,000 of the 600,000 residents of this vast land).
I think the main reason most of the food comes from further south is that America relies so much on processed foods, of which most of it comes from factories further south. Since we don’t have factories in Alaska, there isn’t much choice in foods here that doesn’t come from factories in the Lower 48.
As far as subsidies go, I’m not much in agreement with them. Especially in the US, where much of the agriculture is now dominated by huge corporate farms, which still receive these subsidies. Subsidies were supposedly meant to help the small farmer survive, not huge companies profit. On top of that, we are now subsidizing corn for ethanol production. The whole idea of ethanol, burning corn which is good food, when there are folks in the Third World starving, is ridiculous.
Comment by RealTrue — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 4:45 am
Also, if anyone else is interested in this story from Yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071209/ap_on_re_af/rethinking_africa_from_the_ground_up
there’s a bit more of the rest of the world view in this story.
Comment by RealTrue — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Turku, or rather its outpost Naantali, has one of the most popular theme parks in Finland: http://www.muumimaailma.fi/
Comment by fax — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:16 am
“Finland is a parasite. EU farm subsidies are high enough. There’s now way that Finland should receive EXTRA subsidies over and above what is paid out to French farmers”
Huh? Considering the money sent to Brussels and what is returned in total, the real parasites are in another direction. Besides 141 is not something that is paid to Finland by EU or anybody. It is only a permission to pay ourselves to our farmers with our money.
Comment by Antti rn — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Good comment winter (8)
Finns don’t know of these arguments. I lived in Finland in 2005. The Make Poverty History campaign for trade justice and debt cancellation did not get any real coverage from the Finnish media. They showed the concert but that was it. Finnish churches did nothing either.
I can’t help but think that deep down Finns regard themselves to be racially superior to Africans. Did doesn’t matter if they starve as a result of farm subsidies and unfair trade. Finns would never campaign for an end to CAP subsidies. At the end of the day they see Africans as ants, or some sort of other animal. It doesn’t matter that people die. Finland comes above all else. Suomi uber alles.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:40 am
One of the worst culprits in the dumping in Africa has been the USA. I heard once that Kenyan farmers had just gotten a good crop of corn. Then some western countries, in their bleeding heart concern, dumped corn into the economy. The local farmers couldn’t sell their corn for a lower price than the dumped corn, so they ended up with a crop they worked hard for, but couldn’t sell.
Comment by Sirkuspelle — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:53 am
No one of the worst culprits has been the EU. In case you’ve forgotten Finland is a member of the EU. Finland has also been responsible for campaigning hard against any reduction in EU farm subsidies. The attitude of the Finnish government is certainly not helping Africa. Get real and open your eyes
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 11:56 am
I think that it’s not the farmers that are profiteering with subsidies, but the food industry. Because farmers get most of their income from subsidies, industry can keep producer prices low knowing that there is no fear of losing suppliers, whatever they offer. For example, this fall Finnish farmer got 180 e/ton of wheat from a Finnisg buyer. Price in Germany would have been 232 e/ton.
Naturally the foods industry itself is doing not that well. Reason? Long distances with well-known Finnish fuel proces and high labour costs. A deadly combination on a logistics & workforce intensive industry.
What comes to farmland price of 12,000e/ha? WOW! Sirkuspelle, where did you got that number? According to National Land Survey of Finland (www.maanmittauslaitos.fi), average farmland price in Finland was 6000 e/ha. Much of farmland nowadays changes ownership because of urban sprawl or speculation of land being plotted for building, and that naturally raises averages and asking prices for the most interesting places. Land for simly just farming is much less in value.
Comment by T — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
12,000 was a figure given to me by a farmer in the Salo area. The “official” prices are not always what people pay for the land.
Comment by Sirkuspelle — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Most of Finland’s vegetables and grains come from outside of Finland. When you eat ‘Finnish’ rye bread then nearly all of the rye has been imported. If we are talking about subsidies from the E.U then it really concerns sugar beet farmers the most but economic forces are economic forces and if sugar is cheap enough from another country someone will buy it - maintaining a competitive domestic market price for Finnish sugar has been what these protests are about.
Concern with higher food prices in Finland should be tempered with the understanding that Finland’s geographical location means higher transportation costs for imported products, fuel costs are high, labor costs are high and having a relatively small population effects economies of scale. Also should mention high sales tax at 17 percent. All of these things mean that food prices are high and something like Finnish sugar has been competitive in the past because of the subsidies and the relative expense of importing sugar. But with the subsidies gone then imported sugar is much cheaper and so it’s obvious that buyers will be looking for a price advantage.
It’s not easy being a farmer in Finland - the rural economies depend on them and they are under a lot of pressure. What they are most interested in is supplying the domestic Finnish market - they are not interested in dumping on foreign markets or so on. The E.U subsidies should be helping rural economies but are often mismanaged and a lot of misdirection of funding goes on. The whole process europe wide needs to be looked at and become more transparent.
Comment by Andy Campbell — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
“Also should mention high sales tax at 17 percent.”
Highest in EU, except for Denmark which has natural gas, and can therefore absorb high VAT. But Finland is not so rich; it’s good to tax poor people. Keeps them poor, where they belong.
“fuel costs are high”
But lower than in Germany.
“geographical location means higher transportation costs”
Or lower costs due to less traffic congestion than in central Europe. I suspect that maintenance and other costs are higher in Finland though, due to sub-optimal and overtaxed local economy.
Importing by ship is also cheap—probably a lower per-unit price from Rostock to Hanko than by truck from Milan to Munich…or Paris to Essen. Take your pick.
“But with the subsidies gone then imported sugar is much cheaper”
Sugar beet is necessary for defense strategy. We must overpay…for EVERYTHING.
Comment by Kristian — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
It may well be cheaper to get from Rostock to Hanko than from Milan to Munich (or not, I don’t know). But either way, I doubt much of our foods imports grow in Rostock harbour.
Comment by JG — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
I’ve thought about that too, JG. But when I see imported products from Australia, Spain, UK, etc. offered in German stores at about half the Finnish price, it makes the whole “transportation to Finland is expensive” argument rather implausible.
Is there a longer distance from Madrid to Berlin, than from Madrid to Helsinki? I doubt it is significant. Berlin might even cost slightly more, considering traffic through the Ruhr region.
Even those little packaged Argentinian steaks that require cold storage only cost about 3.50e in Germany. But why 8e in Finland, where cold storage is practically free most of the year? And does it cost more flying to Germany than to Finland?
I would look at cartel / protectionist pricing and an overtaxed economy as the culprit. All the high tax ones listed have high prices / low standards of living:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp
Except maybe the ones which have oil or gas reserves.
Comment by Kristian — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
“Or lower costs due to less traffic congestion than in central Europe. I suspect that maintenance and other costs are higher in Finland though, due to sub-optimal and overtaxed local economy.
Importing by ship is also cheapâ€â€probably a lower per-unit price from Rostock to Hanko than by truck from Milan to Munich…or Paris to Essen. Take your pick.”
Traffic congestion? Come on, get real. There is no transport company in the world that would rather run a Iisalmi-Rovaniemi connection than, say, one between Dortmund and Ulm, for all that congestion on the great German Autobahn and nevermind that the latter is almost 100km longer.
Finland is a small market far away from big producing markets (the Saint Petersburg region, for all its comparative wealth, does not produce food for Finnish consumption), more than any in Europe excepting Iceland and Norway, probably, and we know what the prices are in those countries. For all the negative aspects of the current Finnish economic policy, that is a big, undeniable factor affecting food (and other) prices.
But, like I always say, kudos to you for fitting every conceivable topic and argument nicely into your greater world view. For that, you are the resident genious on FfT.
“Sugar beet is necessary for defense strategy.”
I may be splitting hairs here, but the term is “huoltovarmuus” (”guaranteed supply”), which is not actually a “defence strategy” but a way to safeguard the populace (and, in consequence, the army) against major trade disruptions in foodstuffs. For it to be useful as a policy, a war is not needed, but a major economic crises, a pandemic or a big natural disaster will do quite nicely.
Comment by Drakon — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
@ #13:
“Finns don’t know of these arguments. I lived in Finland in 2005. The Make Poverty History campaign for trade justice and debt cancellation did not get any real coverage from the Finnish media. They showed the concert but that was it. Finnish churches did nothing either.”
Atleast for me, the fact that we should do something to help the developing world is very clear and we have all these “hunger day” etc. fundraising events once every couple of months.
“I can’t help but think that deep down Finns regard themselves to be racially superior to Africans. Did doesn’t matter if they starve as a result of farm subsidies and unfair trade. Finns would never campaign for an end to CAP subsidies. At the end of the day they see Africans as ants, or some sort of other animal. It doesn’t matter that people die. Finland comes above all else. Suomi uber alles.”
Woah, where did that come from? Sure, there are racists in Finland like in any other country but what makes you think the majority of Finns are such assholes? “Racially superior?” “animals?” I don’t think even the racist think like that! And that Deutchland-lied sitation was very tactless indeed.
From what country were you again? USA? Have a look here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdf (the second chart, you can’t really judge from the total amount when talking about FINvsUSA). See, we are actually giving more % from our budget to the developing world than you are!
The people starving in Africa has very little to do with 141 anyways, and it’s not like we aren’y already importing most of our food, it’s more about helping the Finnish farmers from falling into unemployment and poverty. Anything wrong with that? It’s our money anyways…
Comment by Lutz — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
I’ve thought about that too, JG. But when I see imported products from Australia, Spain, UK, etc. offered in German stores at about half the Finnish price, it makes the whole “transportation to Finland is expensive†argument rather implausible. #
Not really, if you want to get something from the UK to Germany it’s definitely cheaper than getting it to Finland, just as that is true often in the opposite direction also. In very simple terms, there is more movement of goods between these two places, and thus more demand = more logistic companies operating = lower prices. There’s only circa 5,2 million of us, and we’re pretty spread out. I should have also said, that just as not all our foodstuffs are produced in Rostock harbour, neither do the entire Finnish population live in Hangö’s docks. There’s certainly more options for getting something from Munich to London than from Munich to Oulu.
Comment by JG — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
“The people starving in Africa has very little to do with 141 anyways”
Wrong. EU subsidies undermine agriculture in the developing world. Just because you don’t know this doesn’t make it not true. Do some research.
“and it’s not like we aren’y already importing most of our food, it’s more about helping the Finnish farmers from falling into unemployment and poverty. Anything wrong with that? It’s our money anyways”
Just proving, oncce again, that Finns do not care about anything or anyone that is not Finnish. No compassion. Finland uber alles. We’ll do what we, the Finns, want to do; racist hick idiots in need of education.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
@ #25:
“Wrong. EU subsidies undermine agriculture in the developing world. Just because you don’t know this doesn’t make it not true. Do some research.”
It isn’t just agriculture what makes countries wealthy. They need to develope their industrial etc. structures too, and if we only support their grain export, that won’t happen. They will just produce more and more grain because they can just barely support themselves with it, but won’t get any wealthier because it isn’t the most profitable business in the world.
I’m not saying we should leave them on their own either and not buy any of their their grain, that would leave them with no business at all, but I don’t think they would benefit from increased grain exports that much that you seem to think. IMO, supporting education will bring them more good.
“Just proving, oncce again, that Finns do not care about anything or anyone that is not Finnish. No compassion. Finland uber alles. We’ll do what we, the Finns, want to do; racist hick idiots in need of education.”
Untill this point I thought you were serious but now it becomes clear that you are just a troll… Or then you have some big problems with your and your nation’s ego (you didn’t answer what it was, btw).
Oh and I love how you answer only the parts of my post that suit you… Very professional.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
<–
oops, forgot to sign that
Comment by Lutz — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
So Finland is now they country that dosent care about Africa and it’s all their fault!…Haha this blog should be tranfered to the comedy central website.
Kristians never ending twisting it to suit my needs goes and goes on
Comment by TT — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Excuse my interruption, but I find hillarious that some Finns make excuses for their country’s low living standard. It’s like the standard justification is “Finland is far away from everywhere else, so everything must cost several times more” LOL Why not just admit that you have a shit economic system and try to fix it? There’s no shame in it. But to keep defending it is absurd.
Comment by expat nate — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
To be franck there is no much future for traditional agriculture.
Emerging world, through very cheap ad large labour pool, will flood the market with very cheap products that Europe cannot compete against. We saw the effect with manufacturing, especially through China.
Soon or later, agriculture protectionism will fall…so it’s better that farmers recycle in niche market or reinvent themselves.
At the end of the day the subsidies they receive is coming from Tax payers and politicians are using the cause for just winning votes as they know that it’s a dead end.
Regarding the agriculture minister, I caught the following a while ago:
http://housingfinland.blogspot.com/2007/11/joke-of-day_27.html
Comment by Housing finland — Mon, Dec 10th, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
In a time of crisis, this kind of protectionist policy that Finland now has would give the countries on which we rely on a good excuse to limit exports of food, energy and other products to Finland. Protectionism is not good for Finland nor is a rapid structural change in agriculture, but Finland will probably end the subsidies in the near future.
Comment by Auriga — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 1:34 am
well, we all agree.
Protectionism does not work, and is yet another failed government policy. The internet started this (Darn I hate Al Gore, the inventor).
Who wants a cheep bottle of Vodka? It even comes in a plastic container.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 3:33 am
policies like school choice in the USA, portable pensions without corporations and decentralized health care (no government) can you say Walmart (ug, not them again with cheep eye care, and soon to have fast doctor visits) is all a philosophy of “free markets lead to free people”.
Even Slovakia, now has a emerging profit-based health system.
Finland is on the same road.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 3:45 am
Winter, it’s all about the scale. EU can be protectionist against the rest of the world and so can the US. But if Finland tries to, it will very soon run out of salt. (Salt was the most important imported good to Finland in the middle ages, most important exports were salted fish and salted butter :))
Comment by Auriga — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 3:52 am
Auriga, in time of crisis countries do not need to “limit exports of food” to get Finland into trouble, because we are literally at the end of the chain here: if most governments see an imminent crisis, it is every country for itself and foodstuffs from, say, the Americas never reach this isolated corner of the world. While I agree with you that Finland, as a small country, is in an economically poor bargaining position, I think that rather makes Finland’s ability to secure food imports in a crisis very weak, whether we practice free trade or not. Last times Finland was in such a mess, trade policy had no bearing on it whatsoever. It was the realpolitik that counted.
expat nate: “I find hillarious that some Finns make excuses for their country’s low living standard. It’s like the standard justification is “Finland is far away from everywhere else, so everything must cost several times more†LOL Why not just admit that you have a shit economic system and try to fix it? There’s no shame in it. But to keep defending it is absurd.”
This is not about the living standard, it is about higher prices and the question whether or not the small size off the Finnish market (as in the number of people) and its comparative distance from big markets affects those prices. Finland’s economic system is, in many regards, “sub-optimal”, as Kristian puts it, but I maintain that even with ultra-liberal market policies Finland would suffer from those comparative disadvantages as higher prices, because the country would still be less enticing for international companies than, say, any country nearer to Central Europe and south of the Gulf of Finland. Because the Finnish market would, in any case, lure in only a small number of market players in the food retail business, I also think that the market oligopoly, more or less in the current form, would survive even if foreign chains would be substituted for some of the domestic chains.
Comment by Drakon — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Southern Finland’s weather is pretty much like that in Montreal, Denver or Geneva. Ask plants if you don’t believe me. Grapes is one indicator. So, is the climate in southern Alaska the same as in Switzerland? Interesting. (And try to resist the “heh, a silly Finn once again not knowing how things really are” reaction and do some googling instead.)
Finns don’t know of these arguments.
Of course they don’t! They read more newspapers and visit libraries more often than anybody else but they need the really civilized ones, the Americans to tell them what’s really going on because their brains got frozen when they were young (right after the PISA-survey apparently). I’m glad that “winter”, the Mississippi of thoughts, now for the first time brought these arguments up, lol.
Comment by Back in the USSR — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
country’s low living standard … Why not just admit that you have a shit economic system
LOL. If you consider about the tenth richest country GDP wise with the longest vacations poor, then yes of course. I just wonder what that makes something like Germany. A third-world country? But hey, surely this must be one of those “childish Finns just brag because they are ignorant asses” things. Yes indeed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
Year 2006 Finland was 11th not 10th (just €5 000 ahead of Germany). Then again the way Finland’s economy is growing Finland surely has surpassed a country or two this year.
By the way, the efforts of trying to make this perhaps the most vibrant economy in the world at the moment to look like the opposite needs such acrobatic skills that it’d be thrilling to watch. Would be, unfortunately you guys don’t manipulate statistics interestingly enough.
Here’s a hint: admit that the IMF’s comparison of PPP GDPs (corrected with purchasing power) and the growth rates must be close to the truth.
1 Luxembourg 81,511 4.42
2 Ireland 44,676 4.00
3 Norway 44,648 2.61
4 United States 43,223 2.37
5 Iceland 40,112 2.81
6 Switzerland 38,706 2.46
7 Netherlands 36,937 2.40
8 Denmark 36,920 2.66
9 Qatar 36,632 4.49
10 Austria 36,368 3.11
11 Finland 35,559 4.75
Pretty depressing figures indeed, but that’s not the whole picture. I’ve seen suggested that in Finland a much bigger portion of the income would be property income. That indeed would make the salaries smaller although the PPP GDP is big. Unfortunately it seems that this functional income distribution is actually very average in Finland, about 55% goes to the employees.
Another way to go is to say that Finns pay far higher taxes than about anybody else and don’t get much in return. Indeed, the total tax ration in the EU (EU27) is 39,6% while in Finland it’s four percentage points higher. Now all you have to do is convince the world that those “extra” Euros are not spend efficiently (to pay back loans, for instance) and thus they lower the standard of living.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Southern Finland’s weather is pretty much like that in Montreal, Denver or Geneva. Ask plants if you don’t believe me. Grapes is one indicator. So, is the climate in southern Alaska the same as in Switzerland? Interesting. (And try to resist the “heh, a silly Finn once again not knowing how things really are” reaction and do some googling instead.)
Finns don’t know of these arguments.
Of course they don’t! They read more newspapers and visit libraries more often than anybody else but they need the really civilized ones, the Americans to tell them what’s really going on because their brains got frozen when they were young (right after the PISA-survey apparently). I’m glad that “winter”, the Mississippi of thoughts, now for the first time brought these arguments up, lol.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
The Finns want to keep on paying these subsidies because they have a common brain damage, making it impossible to form coherent trains of thoughts. Why not just admit that the Finns are special in that sense?
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
DDrakon what do you mean by ‘other countries don’t have to limit exports of food to Finland to get us in trouble’?
I don’t quite follow you.
I was under the impression that we import a lot of food, energy and materials already.
Comment by Auriga — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
38. Finn in denial.
Facts.
1. Finland is a member of the EU
2. Finland campaigns hard against any cuts to the CAP budget
3. CAP is unjust and creates poverty in the developing world.
4. Finland is partially responsible for poverty in Africa.
End of story.
Go and get an education.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Drakon: Because the Finnish market would, in any case, lure in only a small number of market players in the food retail business,”
What’s contained within that statement is an acknowledgment that Finns can’t develop their own competitive market. Instead, someone from the outside needs to step-in and provide it—and all the jobs that come with it. Why can’t competition come from within?
Drakon: “I also think that the market oligopoly, more or less in the current form, would survive even if foreign chains would be substituted for some of the domestic chains.”
Exactly. The reason is that if you don’t change the economic system, then you’ll always have the oligopoly, regardless of whether the chains are of foreign or domestic-origin. Lidl is a perfect example—almost the same high prices as its Finnish competitors.
There’s a very natural tendency for highly centralized economies such as Finland’s, to give top players built-in privilege. It’s by design.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp
Sweden is an even more stark example of a privilege-based system: the economy is designed to preserve the position of a few key oligarchs that developed empires either during- or shortly after- the war (before Socialism took hold). Without them, Sweden’s economy would suffer dramatically.
But taxes are so high for wage-earners, that the chance of any new competition succeeding is null. In fact, any type of business success is generally discouraged from birth onward.
That’s the fallacy of systems that are rooted in ideology: they all need some rich daddies at the top to keep the masses employed. And the tax structure is formulated accordingly.
Comment by Kristian — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
if one inports, then one is dependent. Thats the world today, and it makes us safer, as interests become one, both the importer and exporter keep the shipping lanes open.
So, for those who think you can go it alone, the world has passed you by.
Comment by winter, "Yea, Proton Power, now in remission" — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
In fact, any type of business success is generally discouraged from birth onward.
LOL. Yes, I can see it, parents chanting to their babies: “Don’t wish success.”
Here’s a book you must ask for Christmas:
http://www.creamedia.fi/uutinen.asp?id=861
I mean, come on, Finland wouldn’t be one of the richest and fastest growing economies without numerous individual success stories. Like Toivo Sukari or the Keskinen boys to mention a few in the retail business. Google for “vuoden yrittäjä” if you want to know about thousands more.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
“LOL. Yes, I can see it, parents chanting to their babies: “Don’t wish success.—
You don’t think this is designed to keep everybody equal?
http://www.verosirkus.net
You should read about Jante’s Law.
http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000775.php
Anonymous “I mean, come on, Finland wouldn’t be one of the richest and fastest growing economies without numerous individual success stories.”
Richest?
http://www.finlandforthought.net/2006/12/07/finlands-net-worth-per-capita-lowest-in-old-eu-by-alot/
Any small amount of wealth in Finland can either be attributed to the inherited landmass or the gravitational pulling-effect of comparatively wealthier western Europe.
Those GDP figures you listed above are meaningless if not accompanied by correspondingly high wealth figures. High GDP only means that you can run fast and efficiently on a treadmill. Finland certainly can do that. But GDP doesn’t tell you anything about where the profits are going. For example, in Nokia’s case, they are going to low-tax places like the USA and Switzerland. Hence, Finland’s growth and GDP is not for the benefit of Finland, itself.
But you are right about some of the individual success stories. We have entrepreneurs in our family. In my experience, entrepreneurs are the ones who curse about Finland’s system the most…unless they make it really BIG early-on; then the privileged-based system fits just fine.
But for those at the lower end, the talk around the sauna sounds like: “Suomi on punainen maa…“
Comment by Kristian — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Kristian you are wrong Finland is not red (Suomi on punainen maa). When did we have socialist majority in parliament the latest time? Finland is still Kekkosslovakia. We have rural party prime minister, reddish president, Helsinki city council is green (they are growing something, unlike the rurals) and the minister of the treasury is… well you get what I mean, easily going to be a Led Zep concert visitor. ( Can’t really say what I mean, the new chief of security police is in the same party as the treasurer). Surreal enough? ???
Comment by Auriga — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Kristian, you really should try to understand what the GDP really means. It’s certainly, among other things, a pretty good indicator of the wealth within an economy, first of all, because the GDP is produced to a great extent by capital investments, secondly, because property is usually also used as securities for loans which in turn turn into economic activity, and thirdly, because it’s a good indicator of the productivity and thus salaries and wealth accumulation in a long run
And if Finnish companies could made these foreigners you fantasize about rich and still produce one of the per-capita biggest and fastest growing economies in the world, well, that would be pretty amazing, don’t you think? And yes indeed, some of the firms are pretty exceptional, but unfortunately not that exceptional, well not all of them.
Here are economic-freedom rankings. “Red Finland” is 16th. Did it rank higher in this conservative, American listing, it would be embarrassing
http://www.heritage.org/index/countries.cfm
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
I remember the times when “becoming as rich as the Swedes” was just a silly dream. But then all of a sudden it happened in the late 80s, Finland’s GDP was bigger than that of Sweden.
The next destination couldn’t be anything else than taking over the USA. And now when I look at the figures above, it too has happened in one particular sense. Finland’s GDP is 18% lower, but then again Finns work 20% less. Doesn’t that make us richer?
Well, if you don’t think so, I’ll be back in 10-20 years. If the current trend continues we’ll be richer even with those longest vacations in the world (also called the “treadmill working hours” in the Kristian lingo).
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
LOL! Finland may be rich, but it is only due to the “gravitational pull” of nearby wealthier, i.e. Lower GDP economies. Kristian, you should do stand-up! Priceless! Keep up the good work!
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Yes Kristian, losers all over the world tend to whine and blame others for their failures. It’s a human trait. Succesful entrepreneurs don’t have time to whine, they’re too busy making money.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Mr. Anonymous,
If you want to look at this from an “economics” point of view, then Kristian is exactly right. Your explanations are not.
GDP really means. It’s certainly, among other things, a pretty good indicator of the wealth within an economy, first of all, because the GDP is produced to a great extent by capital investments
Those don’t have to be finnish sourced capital investments. They can be from foreign sources, like the USA. GDP only explains how efficiently those capital invesmtnes are utilized.
secondly, because property is usually also used as securities for loans which in turn turn into economic activity
That again doesn’t need to be finnish property or capital.
and thirdly, because it’s a good indicator of the productivity and thus salaries and wealth accumulation in a long run”
Right, its good idicator of productivity and maybe gross salaries to, but it doesn’t indicate WHO will become wealthy. You can easily have high GDP and make someone else wealthy.
An analogy is that you can work efficiently for your boss (and he might even supply you with best tools), but it doesnt automatically mean that YOU are going to benefit from your efficent labor by getting a higher paycheck, and that YOU are going to have a large bank account.
You should check your economic formulas again.
Comment by Mouse — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
#40 Finland only produces salted fish and salted butter for the export. Niedersachsen only provides salt to Finland, so this is what we have agreed as the fair treaty of foods. The green artillery shall shoot any other vessel down. Is this ok in Travemunde?
Comment by Auriga — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Mr Mouse, there was a catch in what I wrote, the kind of catch that people like you often miss: the catch was that you are supposed to understand what is written before commenting. “It’s [the GDP] certainly, among other things, a pretty good indicator of the wealth within an economy” means exactly what it says and is naturally true.
Taking Kristian’s fantasies seriously means that something is not right, honestly.
Anyway, let’s assume that he is correct: a big part, most perhaps, of what Finland’s economy produces leaves the country and Finland is an exception in this sense. At the same time Finland’s economy per capita is about the tenth biggest and growing faster than perhaps any other economy. This must mean, if you can follow the “argument”, that Finland’s economy actually is much stronger than what it looks like on paper; it can after all compensate for that lost capital year after year. I’m not sure how strong Kristian thinks our economy really is, and I guess he won’t tell because all this really exists only in his head, but he must think we’ve got one helluva money machine going on here! (Back in the real life just google for gross national income, bruttokansantulo comparisons. Some years Finland “looses” money to foreigners, some years “gain”, last year, I seem to remember, “we” got a bit more from abroad than what was paid there.)
As for the latter part of your misunderstanding, perhaps you like to get familiar with the term “functional income distribution”, so that you don’t have to draw on analogies.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Kristian - just to say that some of your points are valid, but nearly all fresh and frozen food products from outside the E.U come through Holland. So transport costs are based on how far the destination is from Rotterdam. One time I was interested in importing pineapples. The cost to get a container of pineapples by boat to Finland was more than the cost of taking the pineapples by truck from Rotterdam.
Comment by Andy Campbell — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
A comparison taking into account capital flows (GNI). In 2005 Finland ranked 11th, meaning that Finland’s GDP is about the same even with those mysterious foreigners who are making us run on a treadmill for them
Sorry, folks, but don’t worry, you just carry on like you’ve done so far. It’s the Swiss in black helicopters who at night empty our accounts, honestly they do!
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
In Kristian’s parallel universe there’s a simple way to increase the wealth of Finland:
Everybody gets 5 credit cards, maxes them out and buys stocks and mutual funds with the money. Voilá! The Wealth of the Nation is multiplied. But…wait a second…isn’t there already an economy like that somewhere?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, Dec 11th, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
According to IMF estimates, Finland will be ninth this year (PPP GDP per capita) and eight by 2008 just 14% behind the USA. The way things are going, in seven years an average Finn will be BIGGER than her American counterpart … well, as far as the purchasing power goes at least. Vapise Amerikka!
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 12th, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
In 2006 Finland’s economy produced about 1 700 new PPP dollars per each citizen. Only Ireland and Qatar grew faster, but because capital flows out of Ireland pretty massively and even more so out of Qatar, my guess is that for the first time in history Finland was (and continues to be this year) the world champion in the purchasing power growth.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 12th, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
So why then is Finland so expensive compared to other countries? It’s not like people in Finland earn more than anyone who lives anywhere else. Most Finns notoriously earn less.
Why all the old cars people drive and tiny flats people live in? By my estimation, the country sure looks poor for being such a “rich” country.
Is it maybe that GDP PPP doesn’t explain everything?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 12th, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
OK, so what I have gathered - you people want Africans and South Americans and Indonesians and who else to destroy their own environments so that Europeans can eat cheaply? Theres been “cash crops” grown in a variety of countries with a variety of success, but say look at something like cotton production that has destroyed Aral Sea to start with to the deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest not mentioning the Sahel in between; in other words the farmers in the so-called thirld world countries should support your egocentrist lifestyles? And Finns are the racists? How about the Africans being able to grow their own food - or is the WFP adverts in the TV just another scam? Countries that have given up that for cash crops, say like coffee or cocoa that are hugely dependent on world market prices that have to import their food - they’re the countries in trouble. And why - because some businessman came to tell them to farm this shit and they believed it would bring them riches. Yeah, right. The multinational conglomerates run the show - they are the ones keeping the farmers poor. United Fruit just wants to keep them Banana Republics.
Comment by Hank W. — Wed, Dec 12th, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Banana republics….say that 5 times fast
Comment by winter, "Yea, Proton Power, now in remission" — Thu, Dec 13th, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Can’t we at least Blame Bush here? Standards are slipping.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Thu, Dec 13th, 2007 @ 4:24 am