3 ms·

I know basically nothing about Finland, and was curious about your comment as I find government spending an interesting topic. So the first thing I did was look

I know basically nothing about Finland, and was curious about your comment as I find government spending an interesting topic. So the first thing I did was look up the government budget trends in Finland. [1] As an outsider it just seems that the Finnish budget is growing at an exponential pace? From 2010 to 2019 the budget went from ~50bn to 55bn per year, nearly managing to even create a balanced budget in 2018. From 2019 to to 2024 it seems to have grown to 90bn/year and is continuing to rapidly grow. There's certainly some expectation of an increased budget during COVID times, but it doesn't seem to be coming down, at all? [1] - https://vm.fi/en/the-budget https://vm.fi/en/the-budget

ruszki 3y ago
How much change is that in real value?
thejohnconway 3y ago
A combination of Covid, and the security situation with Ukraine and Russia perhaps.
jltsiren 3y ago
The central government took full responsibility of funding healthcare, social services, and some other government functions in 2023. Before that, large part of the funding came from municipal governments. Then there is the war in Ukraine. Normally, Russia is one of the most important trading partners of Finland. But when it doesn't know how to behave, a large part of foreign trade is missing, and the economy suffers.
- usr1106 3y ago
  > Normally, Russia is one of the most important trading partners of Finland. Partially explains why there is no light in the tunnel of the state budget. But it does not explain why many authorities are struggling with services for residents which worked better a decade ago. It is not so that authorities would have experienced severe cuts in budgets or headcount during the last 2 years.
usr1106 3y ago
Finland has been a very poor country after WW II until the 1970s (compared to Sweden who had no war or Germany who lost the war). An economy best compared to Portugal or Greece. The was a first overheating boom in the end of the 1980s, until a heavy recession took over in the 1990s. The next boom was Nokia driven in the 2000s until the global banking crisis. Since Nokia has fallen (well, it still exists but with a different business and more modest success) there has been little to no growth and heavy deindustrialization. So basically Finland is back to the previous state of being a poor country with weak industry (I am exaggerating a bit). But the spending has continued to grow like the Nokia boom years had never ended. Edit: Finland has one of the least favorite population pyramids in Europe. People getting older and no children. Very little immigration until maybe the last decade. And now a far right government with a strong anti-immigration agenda.
- kilpikaarna 3y ago
  This is basically it, with the addition that Finland is no lomger in control of its own money. From the war up until adopting the Euro, Finland would devalue its currency a little over once a decade to keep commodity exports going. The EMU is a mechanism effectively set up to extract wealth from the european periphery, for the benefit of Germany (and maybe to a lesser extent Framce). Finland is very much on the losing side, along with Greece, Portugal etc. Perhaps with the difference that the culture is very protestant, with high trust in government. So rather than letting the situatiom deteriorate to what it was in southern Europe durkng the Euro crisis, the populace will flock to the stern faces speaking of deficits in the media, and dutifully vote them in.
  - bojan 3y ago
    I don't understand this putting the blame on the EMU. The demise of Nokia has nothing to do with it. Finland getting de-industrialized also has nothing do do with it, but with the openness of the European market which brought us incredibly cheap commodities at the expense of our own industry. Even Germany is struggling.
  - G3rn0ti 3y ago
    > The EMU is a mechanism effectively set up to extract wealth from the european periphery, for the benefit of Germany (and maybe to a lesser extent Framce). Finland is very much on the losing side, along with Greece, Portugal etc. Nonsense. „Devaluating the national currency“ is a euphemism for extracting wealth from the citizens without them realizing getting poor. The stability criteria are there to protect you from a government destroying your money. I don’t get why so many Europeans think the Euro is hurting them economically while in reality it was holding them back (especially in Greece and Italy, their national currency was practically worthless). However, it takes time for member state governments to get used to an independent central bank. Best regards and hot kisses from Germany.
depr 3y ago
As Weber observed, the free market requires a lot of bureaucracy.

ruszki 3y ago

How much change is that in real value?

thejohnconway 3y ago

A combination of Covid, and the security situation with Ukraine and Russia perhaps.

jltsiren 3y ago

The central government took full responsibility of funding healthcare, social services, and some other government functions in 2023. Before that, large part of the funding came from municipal governments. Then there is the war in Ukraine. Normally, Russia is one of the most important trading partners of Finland. But when it doesn't know how to behave, a large part of foreign trade is missing, and the economy suffers.

usr1106 3y ago
> Normally, Russia is one of the most important trading partners of Finland. Partially explains why there is no light in the tunnel of the state budget. But it does not explain why many authorities are struggling with services for residents which worked better a decade ago. It is not so that authorities would have experienced severe cuts in budgets or headcount during the last 2 years.

usr1106 3y ago

Finland has been a very poor country after WW II until the 1970s (compared to Sweden who had no war or Germany who lost the war). An economy best compared to Portugal or Greece. The was a first overheating boom in the end of the 1980s, until a heavy recession took over in the 1990s. The next boom was Nokia driven in the 2000s until the global banking crisis. Since Nokia has fallen (well, it still exists but with a different business and more modest success) there has been little to no growth and heavy deindustrialization. So basically Finland is back to the previous state of being a poor country with weak industry (I am exaggerating a bit). But the spending has continued to grow like the Nokia boom years had never ended. Edit: Finland has one of the least favorite population pyramids in Europe. People getting older and no children. Very little immigration until maybe the last decade. And now a far right government with a strong anti-immigration agenda.

kilpikaarna 3y ago
This is basically it, with the addition that Finland is no lomger in control of its own money. From the war up until adopting the Euro, Finland would devalue its currency a little over once a decade to keep commodity exports going. The EMU is a mechanism effectively set up to extract wealth from the european periphery, for the benefit of Germany (and maybe to a lesser extent Framce). Finland is very much on the losing side, along with Greece, Portugal etc. Perhaps with the difference that the culture is very protestant, with high trust in government. So rather than letting the situatiom deteriorate to what it was in southern Europe durkng the Euro crisis, the populace will flock to the stern faces speaking of deficits in the media, and dutifully vote them in.
- bojan 3y ago
  I don't understand this putting the blame on the EMU. The demise of Nokia has nothing to do with it. Finland getting de-industrialized also has nothing do do with it, but with the openness of the European market which brought us incredibly cheap commodities at the expense of our own industry. Even Germany is struggling.
- G3rn0ti 3y ago
  > The EMU is a mechanism effectively set up to extract wealth from the european periphery, for the benefit of Germany (and maybe to a lesser extent Framce). Finland is very much on the losing side, along with Greece, Portugal etc. Nonsense. „Devaluating the national currency“ is a euphemism for extracting wealth from the citizens without them realizing getting poor. The stability criteria are there to protect you from a government destroying your money. I don’t get why so many Europeans think the Euro is hurting them economically while in reality it was holding them back (especially in Greece and Italy, their national currency was practically worthless). However, it takes time for member state governments to get used to an independent central bank. Best regards and hot kisses from Germany.

depr 3y ago

As Weber observed, the free market requires a lot of bureaucracy.