6 ms·

What is Finland's advantage? Norway I get, it's oil. But Finland is just a well managed country without significant natural resources. Most of its industry is n

What is Finland's advantage? Norway I get, it's oil. But Finland is just a well managed country without significant natural resources. Most of its industry is not related to extraction of resources.

HenryKissinger 7y ago
The US has oil too. And far more than Norway.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Per capita Norway exported ~20x as much oil as the US in 2007. Norway 554.24 bbl/day per 1,000 people United States 28.08 bbl/day per 1,000 people https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/Production/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/P...
  - sgift 7y ago
    If they did export more, how much of the money would go directly to the US government? The main advantage of Norway seems to be that they didn't give away their resources for pittances to private companies, but exploit them directly.
    - Hamuko 7y ago
      Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
  - socialdemocrat 7y ago
    You cannot compare tiny Norway to the whole of the US. You have to compare to individual states in the US. Many American states have more oil than Norway and has produced oil for much longer and at much lower cost. Drilling a 4km deep oil well out in the north sea in rough weather is very different from drilling 20 meters on land in Texas. If you look at various American oil states. They have managed their oil wealth far more poorly than Norway. No sovereign wealth fund. Public system often underfunded and in poor condition. Look at Oklahoma e.g.
- mlatu 7y ago
  Oil is not Oil. There are as many "blends" of crude as there are oil fields (about 160 blends according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products). Some are "thicker" than others and that results in different products you can get from the crude you refine. Also, each crude requires a different setting in your refinery, and it is very costly and lengthy to change that setup. Refineries in the US are for the most part set to heavy crude. Guess what kind of crude the US get's from fracking? . . . It's not heavy crude.
KarlKemp 7y ago
Considering their mentioning of immigration, I fear (Edit: I was right, see replies) they see the the nordics‘ advantage as being almost entirely white. That would not just be boorish, but also wrong: both Sweden and Morway (the two I just checked) have around 17% foreign-born residents, with more than half of those from outside the EU.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ramblerman 7y ago
  Race has nothing to do with it. Rather the question is, does importing radically different cultures, and low skilled labor bear a cost on the welfare state. This is a cost that is probably acceptable, and necessary, but we should keep an eye on the practical limits. Norway has far more money to spend, and Finland has far lower foreign cultural migration, so they don't make fair examples.
- champagneben 7y ago
  The unemployment rate for native Swedes is less than 4%. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Swedes is at around 20%. Regarding Sweden, from Wikipedia: 'First generation immigrants, for example, constituted 60% of economic welfare recipients in 2016, 73% of all unemployed and 53% of those serving long prison sentences.'
ramblerman 7y ago
demographically Finland has about 2% of immigrants from outside of Europe. 0.3% have Arabic as their mother tongue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland That's a huge difference with France/Belgium.
kiba 7y ago
Having natural resources like oil means shit if you squander it like so many countries do.
croissants 7y ago
This isn't a clear-cut "advantage", but Finland is much more ethnically homogeneous than America. Over 90% of people in Finland are ethnically Finnish. Heck, 70% of Finns belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland [1]. It's not anywhere near as diverse (and fractious) as the USA. The USA has historically chosen "more immigration, less social services" and Finland has chosen "less immigration, more social services". "More immigration, more social services" seems to be a hard sell. For whatever reason people generally seem turned off when a welfare state spends money on people who they feel aren't like them. To me it is a problem of convincing voters to spend money, not lacking money to spend. Convincing voters seems easier in a homogeneous place (whatever it was immediately after WWII, there seems to be a strong "we are Finns" culture now). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Demographics
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > Heck, 70% of Finns belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 70% of Finns are merely on the rolls of the Lutheran Church, which really only means that parents had their child baptised as a popular traditional ritual, not as a sign of devout belief. I would suggest that Christianity never penetrated the Finnish psyche as deep as certain other European states. In most Finnish communities the church is not a center of community life but simply a building that stands as a museum (in many localities there is no active church at all). Also, with the rise of the welfare state, Finns immediately abandoned the notion that the Lutheran Church has any significant role to play in the lives of the less fortunate. Finland’s state churches themselves have happily handed over almost all of their charitable role to the state. And in that portion of the country which was traditionally Orthodox, support for the welfare state doesn’t noticeably differ from the Lutheran part. If you want to claim that Finns make their welfare state work because of ethnic homogenity, that ethnic homogenity would have to be located somewhere else than religion.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Finland has forests which isn't really much but is far more than just tundra. I think their advantages are essentially fundamentally geographic but deeply counterintuitive. The Nordics counter intuively may have the "advantage" of a harsh climate which both aids defense and promotes "sincere" cooperation due to a force outside their control and long term planning and infastructure. Don't prepare for winter and it kills you. Conceptuallly it is essentially an inverse resource curse where a disavantage has a positive impact. Of course there are other unspoken factors to their success. Like all nations the geographic distance to trading partners has influence on growth.
- hopia 7y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted, I believe you're on to something here. The harsh climate has forced these countries to adapt, otherwise you'd simply perish in the past. Finland, having no conceivable natural resources like Norway, was forced to adapt by building a few thriving industries and excellent infrastructure to facilitate them.
hopia 7y ago
Advantage is a matter of perspective, but taxes are high and mostly spent on public services. Nothing is ultimately free after all.

What is Finland's advantage? Norway I get, it's oil. But Finland is just a well managed country without significant natural resources. Most of its industry is not related to extraction of resources.

HenryKissinger 7y ago

The US has oil too. And far more than Norway.

keanzu 7y ago
Per capita Norway exported ~20x as much oil as the US in 2007. Norway 554.24 bbl/day per 1,000 people United States 28.08 bbl/day per 1,000 people https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/Production/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/P...
- sgift 7y ago
  If they did export more, how much of the money would go directly to the US government? The main advantage of Norway seems to be that they didn't give away their resources for pittances to private companies, but exploit them directly.
  - Hamuko 7y ago
    Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  You cannot compare tiny Norway to the whole of the US. You have to compare to individual states in the US. Many American states have more oil than Norway and has produced oil for much longer and at much lower cost. Drilling a 4km deep oil well out in the north sea in rough weather is very different from drilling 20 meters on land in Texas. If you look at various American oil states. They have managed their oil wealth far more poorly than Norway. No sovereign wealth fund. Public system often underfunded and in poor condition. Look at Oklahoma e.g.
mlatu 7y ago
Oil is not Oil. There are as many "blends" of crude as there are oil fields (about 160 blends according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products). Some are "thicker" than others and that results in different products you can get from the crude you refine. Also, each crude requires a different setting in your refinery, and it is very costly and lengthy to change that setup. Refineries in the US are for the most part set to heavy crude. Guess what kind of crude the US get's from fracking? . . . It's not heavy crude.

KarlKemp 7y ago

Considering their mentioning of immigration, I fear (Edit: I was right, see replies) they see the the nordics‘ advantage as being almost entirely white. That would not just be boorish, but also wrong: both Sweden and Morway (the two I just checked) have around 17% foreign-born residents, with more than half of those from outside the EU.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ramblerman 7y ago
Race has nothing to do with it. Rather the question is, does importing radically different cultures, and low skilled labor bear a cost on the welfare state. This is a cost that is probably acceptable, and necessary, but we should keep an eye on the practical limits. Norway has far more money to spend, and Finland has far lower foreign cultural migration, so they don't make fair examples.
champagneben 7y ago
The unemployment rate for native Swedes is less than 4%. The unemployment rate for foreign-born Swedes is at around 20%. Regarding Sweden, from Wikipedia: 'First generation immigrants, for example, constituted 60% of economic welfare recipients in 2016, 73% of all unemployed and 53% of those serving long prison sentences.'

ramblerman 7y ago

demographically Finland has about 2% of immigrants from outside of Europe. 0.3% have Arabic as their mother tongue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland That's a huge difference with France/Belgium.

kiba 7y ago

Having natural resources like oil means shit if you squander it like so many countries do.

croissants 7y ago

This isn't a clear-cut "advantage", but Finland is much more ethnically homogeneous than America. Over 90% of people in Finland are ethnically Finnish. Heck, 70% of Finns belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland [1]. It's not anywhere near as diverse (and fractious) as the USA. The USA has historically chosen "more immigration, less social services" and Finland has chosen "less immigration, more social services". "More immigration, more social services" seems to be a hard sell. For whatever reason people generally seem turned off when a welfare state spends money on people who they feel aren't like them. To me it is a problem of convincing voters to spend money, not lacking money to spend. Convincing voters seems easier in a homogeneous place (whatever it was immediately after WWII, there seems to be a strong "we are Finns" culture now). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Demographics

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> Heck, 70% of Finns belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland 70% of Finns are merely on the rolls of the Lutheran Church, which really only means that parents had their child baptised as a popular traditional ritual, not as a sign of devout belief. I would suggest that Christianity never penetrated the Finnish psyche as deep as certain other European states. In most Finnish communities the church is not a center of community life but simply a building that stands as a museum (in many localities there is no active church at all). Also, with the rise of the welfare state, Finns immediately abandoned the notion that the Lutheran Church has any significant role to play in the lives of the less fortunate. Finland’s state churches themselves have happily handed over almost all of their charitable role to the state. And in that portion of the country which was traditionally Orthodox, support for the welfare state doesn’t noticeably differ from the Lutheran part. If you want to claim that Finns make their welfare state work because of ethnic homogenity, that ethnic homogenity would have to be located somewhere else than religion.

Nasrudith 7y ago

Finland has forests which isn't really much but is far more than just tundra. I think their advantages are essentially fundamentally geographic but deeply counterintuitive. The Nordics counter intuively may have the "advantage" of a harsh climate which both aids defense and promotes "sincere" cooperation due to a force outside their control and long term planning and infastructure. Don't prepare for winter and it kills you. Conceptuallly it is essentially an inverse resource curse where a disavantage has a positive impact. Of course there are other unspoken factors to their success. Like all nations the geographic distance to trading partners has influence on growth.

hopia 7y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted, I believe you're on to something here. The harsh climate has forced these countries to adapt, otherwise you'd simply perish in the past. Finland, having no conceivable natural resources like Norway, was forced to adapt by building a few thriving industries and excellent infrastructure to facilitate them.

hopia 7y ago

Advantage is a matter of perspective, but taxes are high and mostly spent on public services. Nothing is ultimately free after all.