I'm not discussing about the welfare system. You have to prove that your actual economic system can support this "wonderful" welfare estate with a growing economy. With your first post, you are demonstrating that this is a good welfare estate because of the influence on people's education and because there is no corruption. But I'm not agree when you tell us that Finlands's economy is very efficient because Finland is the most competitive country in the world (World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness statistic). I'm not agree because the 'real' numbers don't said that. The most important factor in the economic world is that if the economy of your country is growing or not. And Finland's economy is not actually growing (see PDF link, page 2).

Can you explain how is it possible that the most competitive country in the world is decreasing his economy ? How is it possible that Finland is in the bottom on Europe when we talk about that .

My interest is not showing that you are wrong, I want to know more of Finland and their people. With the last post , I have seen important differences between your political situation and the spanish situation. It's important that you understand that if we have this red numbers in Spain, it will be a HUGE problem for Zapatero, and the opposition party (PP) will use it as the everyday song. It's seems that if there is a problem in Finland , the oposition party will not profit from that and it's seems that none political party is interested to show the red numbers, because there is like an idea of finnish patriotism to solve problems all together. Is something like that?
Excuse me for my poor knowledge of the finnish situation, but I have initiated an interest.

There is of course opposition but the thing is, that the welfare state has such strong support from the voters that when you say we need to cut it down, you lose votes. If you say we might have to do cuts but we'll fight for it until the very end, that might be OK Understand what I mean? Our politics are also in other ways very different from any other country I know: you could call it politics of consensus. Politicians might throw nasty remarks at each other at times but there are almost never open fights, even in election debates it's very seldom that anyone would even raise their voice. Also the voting percentages are low and I just listened to a lecture on this for foreign students by a professor in Political Science and he concluded that the fact that it is so hard to detect any strong "sides" in politics might be a reason but another reason is that according to research, the majority is just satisfied with their lives.

But if you're more interested in the subject, check out the data for Sweden, Norway and Denmark as well. They have the same kind of system (Sweden and Denmark probably have a bit more generous welfre states still) and they're doing almost equally well in the competitiveness list.

And I have to point out that I didn't say it's the most competitive economy, I just pasted a list I saw in the Times because I thought it was curious that the list said that although I would have thought otherwise and I do think it must say something: at least that it's not going exactly bad. If you want to look at the criteria for that list, check the World Economic Forum web pages and I'm sure they have all you want to know.

I checked the Finnish GDP and according to the Bank of Finland http://www.bof.fi/fin/5_tilastot/5.1_Til....8_reaalitalous
the last time GDP growth was negative was in 2002. Weird.

The information I give you is made by the Eurostat, Statistical Office of the European Communities, and is dated October,13 2005.

The information given by the webpage of Bank of Finland is not updated ( last data from august 2005).

Pia: I went to the website link you provided in your initial posting and read the report you reference. Sure is a mouthful, that report. In another life, I managed international sales and marketing for a publicly traded company and digested those types of reports daily. They are interesting reports in that they make a fairly honest attempt to take a great deal of quantitative and qualitative data and draw some useful and unbiased conclusions.

However, they are reports that derive data from, primarily, macro and microeconomic sources and offer only a very small and fast snapshot of a country's business environment.

It would be impossible to take this kind of short-term 12 month economic review and try to derive a a comparative study of effectiveness of liberal vs. conservative politics and philosophies.

It tried to compare things like: innovation, current economic conditions and policies (which are a matter of opinion), and a qualitative opinion poll of unknown business leaders. The U.S. ranked second, in part, because we are spending a great deal of $$$ in Iraq and the "war on terror", the gov't is issuing a great deal of debt to pay for the budgetary over-runs and my guess some other structural economic factors that I didn't read about.

Our current business competitive ranking isn't a function of a the U.S.'s tendency towards conservatism over liberalism. The rankings don't try to comment on liberalism and conservatism. For very complicated statistical reasons I don't comprehend, three very liberal countries came out on top of the list, despite having negative GDP growth. BUT, the report only discusses BUSINESS competitiveness and not the state of national economies.

If you were curious as to how liberalism and conservatism affects national economies, you would have to draw data from a great many years, thirty or more years; chart GDP and GNP growth against the politics of the parties in power and then ignore any large uncommon events like crazy muslims driving airplanes into buildings or crazy Americans investing money in a stock market that was way over-valued (although the market did correct itself when the bubble burst (but that was a market event - not a political event).

My guess is that you have a social life and enjoy the sunlight!

I wasn't trying to make up any hypothesis on economies and ideologies, just create discussion. I'm definitely not an expert on economics.

Actually I don't have a social life right now, I've been sitting at home writing a paper on the changed role of NATO for 4 days now and even if there WAS some sun to enjoy I wouldn't be able to But thanks for your views, hope you have a nice fall - I'm sure it's a lot warmer and nicer in most of the places you guys are from, according to all statistics

I can believe Filbert agreeing with some of my comments, but Chica? Dios mios!

Pia,

I have spent the last several days reflecting on your questions, and the responses by my fellow countrymen and trying to find time to express what I really believe in a coherent manner. I do not feel attacked by your questions as they are intelligently put and you have been very clear from the start that you are not trying to be antagonistic but rather are seeking to understand. I applaud you for your efforts. Seek first to understand before trying to be understood. Beautiful.

Normally I stay away from potentially politically laced threads because they often become nothing but negative finger pointing insulting opportunities for people to wear their political leaning on their sleeves. On a couple of occasions I have been accused of being "anti-American" or leftist or some other crazy title when the poster did not agree with what I had to say. Perhaps this post will also stir up similar responses, but since I am American, and you are asking for some explanations of our viewpoints (which are just as varied as our multicultural society) I thought I would share mine.

Gazpacho wrote:
I consider myself to be moderate in my political/social views. I share gazpacho's view about the opportunity that exists for all people in the USA (gazpacho, don't fall off your chair in surprise! ). But I also think that these opportunities also exist in other free countries such as Spain. One only needs to walk into the local “frutos secos” store to see how the enterprising Chinese immigrants are carving out a better life for themselves here.

I firmly grasp the notion that you are what you make of yourself, and I am speaking from personal experience. However, I also think that capitalism can bring out the worst in people and can potentially foster incredible amounts of greed in people who are not moderate or do not have a sense of self control. We don’t have to look any further than the most recent corporate American scandals that have forever changed the “business as usual” attitude...WorldCom, Enron, etc.

My father emigrated from the Philippines to the USA. He came from a poor family of 11 siblings and had only just started his university education before emigrating. He had neither the advantage of the knowledge of the "American culture" nor as firm a grasp on the English language (as spoken in the USA) as his American-born counter parts, nor the “anglo” skin color. However, he came, worked hard, met and married my mother, got his university and graduate degrees and raised a family of three children who are all well educated, productive citizens. Did he beat the odds? If you look only at statistics, I would have to say yes. Is he unique in his situation? Absolutely not. Many immigrants have come to the USA (and other countries) and have achieved great successes despite the odds. Being the child of an immigrant I have socialized with many who share my same background. All have had similar experiences. My father has now been a proud American citizen for longer than he was a Filipino citizen and considers himself to be conservative in his viewpoints (Republican).

Contrary to what some individuals have posted here, I don’t think that political ideologies have anything to do with skin color or sexual orientation, but rather your own personal set of beliefs based upon your own life experiences. My father is a racial minority and is Republican. I know many other minorities (racial and sexual) who also subscribe whole heartedly to the very conservative point of view. Looking at the current US Administration we can see examples also in Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell as well as a few republican homosexuals who have been “outed”.

My father, using his personal experience as his tool, along with my “anglo” mother (who can trace her family roots back to Germany, Belgium and the Mayflower which set sail from England and represents the more liberal leaning side of the family) raised their three children with the idea that life is what you make of it. Society (or government) gives you the the tools, it’s up to you whether or not you use them. The USA has free public education up through secondary school with compulsory education until the age of 16. Afterwards there are public universities, which cost money, but are subsidized by the government, as well as private universities which are considerably more expensive. Apart from the government subsidies, there are hundreds if not thousands of private grants and scholarships available to students who take the time to research them. These grants and scholarships are offered by organizations, businesses and other wealthy Americans who want to help those willing to help themselves.

I am a product of the public school system. I decided to continue my university education at a private institution (rather than public university) and was helped by the US government through state and federal grants and low-interest state loans. To this day I am still paying for my college loans and don’t regret it for a moment. I earn money, file my taxes and feel like a productive member of society, regardless of where I live. I personally believe that I have achieved great things through this independent way of thinking as modest as those achievements may be (I am no Nobel Prize winner ). I thank my country/society for giving me the opportunity to realize my abilities, but most especially my parents. I think this mentality has helped me in my “immigration” process in Spain. Living in a different country/culture really does help to see your own country in a different light, for all its flaws and positive attributes.

I don’t believe social programs where the government gives everything away really helps anyone. That includes welfare for the poor and hefty tax breaks for the wealthy. People don’t learn to fend for themselves or accept responsibility for their own actions. They learn to be too dependent and too expectant. That dependency and expectancy cuts across all social and class lines, not just the poor minority immigrants, blacks or Latinos which live in our country. It creates a sense of undeserved self-entitlement. I firmly believe that you are entitled to what you have worked for and you work for what you are entitled to, yet you also have a social responsibility...to give back to society in ways that are commensurate with your abilities. Perhaps this belief was ingrained in the American culture from the very first day that the settlers arrived from Europe and had to struggle and fight to establish themselves because there was no big government to support them.

On the other hand, I also believe that no person/society is as great as when they reach back to help those who are left behind. This is the fine line that a government in a capitalist society, such as the United States, needs to learn to walk a bit better. This is where my “leftist” (if they can be called that, I would rather call them moderate or balanced) views come into play.

Unfortunately in the American society (and in all societies) there are the weakest who, due to their circumstances, just do not have the capacity to use the tools provided to “rise above all” and succeed without the support of social programs. I agree with you in that social programs do have a very important place in society, but I don’t think that they should be the most important, so much so that we move away from people learning to help themselves. When a person has learned to do something for himself, that is when they feel the most self-satisfaction, when they have achieved. I think the focus of social programs should be just that. I don’t know if it is a libertarian point of view or not, I really don’t care for political titles. But it is what I believe.

As has been stated in earlier posts, there are far too many capable citizens who are “benefitting” from these social programs that exist in the United States jeopardizing the welfare of those who really do need the support. The challenge is trying to weed out these individuals without totally eliminating the programs for those who truly need it. Perhaps that is the downfall of the American society. I don’t know. Anthropologists and social scientists have been studying this issue for years and have not come up with a solution. I certainly cannot pretend to offer one, nor can any of the other posters here if the very professionals dedicated to this area are confounded by this “phenomenon”.

Anyway, this is a really long winded response to your post and the result of many days of pondering. I hope this has been helpful to your understanding of the complex American society. Thanks for starting such an interesting discussion!

Thank you so much for your post. And I have to say I agree very many things in your post: I also think that focus of social programs should be on self-activation although I consider direct money transfers to be an OK solution in case of temporary problems, and, unlike the far left, I think everyone should have the same starting point but not the same results. People are greedy and if working wouldn't pay off, I don't believe anyone would work. The problem is creating an as-equal-as-possible starting point. I think education and health care are the basic necessities for securing this but then we have the problem of mobilizing the lower social classes to take advantage of these assets and helping those who are not encouraged by their families to help themselves, creating an equal situation for the sexes which is not easy as for example companies have an easier time hiring men who don't risk getting pregnant.. and the list continues. The question is, I guess, where you think the line should be drawn.

I feel have much to thank our system for: when I was born, my mother washed dishes in a hotel and my dad was a student, who later dropped out and got a not too well paid job to support us. My parents have since worked their way up and are both doing fine now, but they could never have saved enough money for a university education for me, my sister and my brother and I would never have had the possibility to do parts of my studies in different countries without the help I've gotten. I'm also really allergic and an asthmatic and I'm really thankful that I haven't had to pay huge amounts for my treatments and medicines. Once I also had a 1,5 month break between two jobs and I couldn't find anything for that period and I don't know what I could have done without the government help I got - at least I would have lost my apartment.

But as I said, I still think focus should be on self-activation and I think paying the expenses of a person that would be fully able to work for years is not only ineffective, it's also unfair. And altough those "cheaters" make up a surprisingly low burden to our economy, I think the fact that they exist act as a disincentive for the majority, those that do their best. This issue has been given attention here from year to year and improvements are, hopefully, constantly being made.

Chica,

I see we have something in common, a strong exposure to the Philippine culture. My wife is Filippina and I've made much effort to be a part of the large P.I. community around Detroit.

I can say I agree with most of your post. Your thoughts about people being greedy as ruining capitalism though, needs a little attention. The main problem is, how do you define greed? If you think that greed is just a severe degree of self-interest, than I couldn't disagree more.

My definition of greed presupposes that the perpetrator must have risen to a certain level of power, and then abused this power to obtain gains disproportionate to their ability. Now this does occur in the U.S. and probably in Finland too, but it isn't the result of capitalism. It's usually the result of nepotism, cronyism or socialism. And you must remember, the U.S. is hardly totally capitalist, as no country ever has been. Because of taxes, the welfare state and state run education, etc. we are a mixed economy. This is the cause of all of our country's woes.

Pia,


This evil attitude is what creating a welfare state like Finland promotes. People work because they have self-interest, not because they're greedy. And believe it or not, some people enjoy being a productive member of society. At least people in the U.S. How could we possibly enjoy all the good things we have without people having self-interest? Yeah, you and I both know the answer, socialist slavery of the productive class. I hope you really didn't mean this.

I think you misunderstood me: I didn't mean that people are necessarily "evil" in some way, by greedy I just meant that people want a reward for their work for themselves (and their family and friends), which is natural and completely understandable. If everyone just wanted to be a "productive member of society", wouldn't communism work OK?