“Of course! It didn’t work! It would never work!”
~ rich right wing government puppets who slashed all the socialist policies and crippled the beneficial system
But is Finland still the model? Not long ago, the goal of the former Social Democrat prime minister Sanna Marin’s government to end homelessness by 2027 was seen as within reach, but in the last three years sweeping cuts to social services, healthcare and benefits by Finland’s rightwing government have seen the country’s success story go into reverse.
It is the right model, but of course right-wingers have billionaire overlords whose cocks need sucking and there are so many people to hate.
Homelessness is a feature, an example for all to see of those who won’t conform, not a problem for right wingers.
It’s economic terrorism. The owners need homeless on the street to control the working class. They need people to suffer so that the working class continues to live in fear and not question the billionaires existence
We need to tax the wealth of the Epstein class. It’s a big source of their power.
“but in the last three years sweeping cuts to social services, healthcare and benefits by Finland’s rightwing government have seen the country’s success story go into reverse”
Classic
a staple amongst right wing governments always give a less fortunate group to look down upon to distract.
Easy concept: Put money in to save and gain money long term -> investment. Conservatives come in and cut so much, that there is no more long term gain -> see all those social investments do not work!!!oneoneeleven!! They only cost money!
Yup. We can learn that left wing politics are humane and right wing politics can only destroy. So nothing new.
The unfortunate fact is that these left wing policies cost money and despite fairly high tax rates, they had to borrow a ton of it. Now that’s being overcorrected for by the right wing and I bet they’ll also lower taxes, causing even more debt.
Much of EU is seeing an increase of both its debt to GDP ratio as well as the average age of its citizens, so a few decades from now, many countries will be proper fucked by debt.
So, what you are saying is that it is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves, and that, under capitalism, people will necessarily be tortured by being denied basic necessities like that. If so, I would argue that you are, indeed, correct.
The borrowing is because right wing oligarchs evade taxes. If we made sure that the reactionary elite actually gets dealt with, it’d solve a lot.
They do pay tax in Finland, it’s much harder to evade than somewhere like the US or UK. And the tax rates are pretty high.
It’s easy to think that the government having more money can solve everything, but there’s still a limited and shrinking pool of labour available. Money doesn’t make young people materialize out of thin air.
If you look at the average age graph for Finland, you’ll notice that 70 years ago it was very young (tons of children who don’t work) and now it’s pretty old (tons of retirees who don’t work). In the middle there, it was a very strong economy with a strong workforce.
The only way around this is to start importing young people from 3rd world countries while they can still afford to allow their people to emigrate - as their own populations start aging, they may have to start restricting it. That’s unpopular because it drives people’s wages down, but if your labour pool is shrinking faster than the amount of people who need to be supported by the labour pool, you need to expand the labour pool somehow. Unless you want to start killing off old people or raise the retirement age to 75 eventually.
I don’t think I can even imagine what a society that has an average age of 25 even looks like.
but there’s still a limited and shrinking pool of labour available.
That’s true, but productivity is also part of the equation. A shrinking quota of young people does not mean that the economy can’t be sustainable, when the outpot of a worker grows.
That is why “just money” can actually go a very long way in solving “all the problems”.
If money is stopping us from helping people, then we need to stop using money, rather than stop helping people.
It… doesn’t matter if you use money or not? An aging society has fewer people working, i.e fewer people helping other people? You’ll have the same problem regardless of capitalism vs communism. Or rather, under capitalism it might even be easier to abuse young, able-bodied folk into supporting a bunch of people who don’t work, we just call those people capitalists rather than retirees or disabled people.
Are you suggesting… stealing?
Well then, tax the rich.
Already explained this elsewhere in the thread, but that doesn’t magically make young people appear out of thin air. Money can be used to motivate people to work, it doesn’t make them appear out of thin air.
You’ll have to start importing people from the third world to make up for your aging society while that’s still an option (i.e while they still have enough young people to allow emigration).
I swear it seems that most people here seem to think money alone can solve every issue without humans being involved when it comes to these issues. If that were the case, why do we need people in the first place? Just have the money farm for food, build housing, etc.
Finland right now has the highest unemployment rate in the EU, so lack of young people can’t explain this particular problem.
This is why I don’t trust the “SocDem” way (Scandinavian socialism.) If you let the capitalists control capital, especially media, it’s just a matter of time before they ruin everything.
The right does not want a safe society. They thrive on fear, so they require unsafety
They want hierarchy. A king, nobles, and an underclass. They don’t care if they’re on top, just so long as someone is below them.
That is conservatism! It was born to support the royals! The core of their believes is that there has to be a hierarchy you are destined to be in and you need to find your place and stay there. Also sorry, you are not over them, cause you are obviously lazy and not in their inner circle, or something.
100%. This is why they oppress women, automatic half the population below the lowest man in their hierarchy. Then vast swaths of those in any minority. Then the poor, etc. And they attract rubes and bullies at each stage.
20% of people are born predisposed to this and will always want it. There are more of us.
They are sociopaths, so they thrive on making others insecure
The elephant in the room are the military expenses to protect against Russia.
The open question is if 5% are necessary or if 2% would have been enough.
The elephant in the room are the military expenses to protect against Russia.
Probably shouldn’t have been invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, and shouldn’t have been pushing for war with Russia all these decades, then.
Nobody can trust Russia. Assholes downed a civil aeroplane and refuse to take responsibility. Also they occupied a lot of Europe and Russified it as much as they tried.
I think that the expenses must be paid from billionnaires’ wallets, and those billionnaires must not be able to trickle the expenses down, also not being able to flee.
Nobody can trust Russia.
You are implying that somebody can trust the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also, most of the world very much does seem to be able to trust Russia just fine.
Well except for the people that share a continent with them…
Incorrect. Most of Eurasia is fine with Russia, including most of its neighbours.
You must be thinking of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan as not trusting Russia.
Also, it is telling that you recognise that the vast majority of the countries that share planet with said invaders do not trust them. Must have something to do with the constant invasions and other atrocities.
Lol Russia invaded Afghanistan you donkey.
The US is untrustworthy. Russia is also untrustworthy.
Actually, I’ll keep going (nonexhaustively and in no particular order):
Germany, the UK, Iran, China, France, Qatar, Canada, both Koreas, obviously Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Brazil, UAE, Sweden, Denmark, Morocco, and Japan are all untrustworthy.
(Please note that I’m not suggesting people from these countries cannot be trusted, but the countries themselves, meaning people acting on behalf of these countries and the governments themselves)
they occupied a lot of Europe and Russified it as much as they tried.
That was the USSR, led by a Georgian. The Russians can be blamed for much but I think they were resettled in the USSR much like any other ethnic group.
If you want to claim that the USSR liberating Europe from the original nazis and stopping the Lebensraum and the Holocaust was “occupation”, you have to also concede that those parts of Europe are currently occupied by NATO.
occupied by NATO
ahhahahahahahahaaaaa
was that the NATO invasion of 1989 when the cluster fuck of the USSR finally imploded and the NATO troops invaded and installed puppet governments
i mean there really is no point talking to ml’s
Really not sure what you could disagree with in my comment in good faith.
Considering that those governments are now puppet governments of the US, it does seem fair to talk about occupation, given that you consider the USSR’s liberation of that part of Europe from the original nazis to be ‘occupation’.
Also, if you want to talk about how people ‘democratically’ chose to join the most prolific invader in the world (, you do have to admit that they should bear responsibility for invasions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places.
It’s a real mystery how the CIA managed to brainwash all the east european warsaw pact countries into hating the USSR while all of their media was still under the control of the proletariat.
That’s a rather silly claim, considering that plenty of people’s lives did get worse after the undemocratic dismantlement of the USSR (which most of these supposed USSR-haters voted against), and the rest are now beneficiaries of things like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s not really surprising that people who join gangs of robbers, murderers and torturers hate not being beneficiaries of such and will claim that they were oppressed even when their living standards were demonstrably some of the best in the world.
Also, you do understand that the USSR was one of the most significant forces behind the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and that it helped liberation movements there, right? And you do understand what that means with regards to what sort of people would hate it, don’t you?
I don’t.
Then you are contradicting yourself.
How?
You are either claiming that the USSR’s liberation of Europe both was and wasn’t occupation, or you are claiming that the USSR preventing fascists from coming into power on those countries was ‘occupation’, while the US putting fascists into power there and also doing things like what has been done to Greece and Ukraine is somehow not such.
Also, as there’s no standardized way to count these, Finland with mandatory conscription has a crapload of expenses which aren’t included in miltary expenses. In current global situation I don’t think increasing expenses was a wrong call and it’s not purely black and white, there’s also at least some jobs to finns trough the investments, but I’d say that our money would’ve been better spent to something else than US and Israel tech as (specially USA) has not been really reliable partner.
But also the reality is that even without those expenses our budget has been negative for quite a while, so something had to be done. I’m not saying that current government had the best actions, and they have objectively made things worse on some places, but just waiting for a miracle wouldn’t have worked either. But that’s a whole another discussion.
I’m curious to understand how disruptive and destructive people are handled. In my community I have heard of multiple tenants - who by all appearances aren’t mentally ill, as they have jobs and families - causing damage that requires stripping the floors and walls, replacing plumbing etc. Simply bringing someone in from the cold doesn’t automatically remove the reasons they’re originally unhoused, and there’s often a reasonable opposition to supervisor visit/inspections as part of previous trauma.
If you break stuff in a rented apartment, you pay the bill. If you dont pay the bill; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraint (the Sweden section seems to be quite similar to what happens here). If you start earning and paying taxes, you’ll have money taken straight from your paycheck and sent to the people you owe money to. There is some time limit to this, but its like 15 years or something.
Things might have changed since I last checked this stuff, over 10 years ago.
How does that work when they’re a recently homeless mentally ill drug addict who causes damage in the tens of thousands of dollars? They don’t have a job etc.
Usually the renters have insurance for damage caused by a person unwilling to pay. Insurance companies pay up and then try to recuperate some of the costs from the person responsible for the damage.
Drug addicts and mentally ill people are offered help and if they cant get or live in a normal rental apartments, there are sort of dormitory style places with nurses, guards and other staff 24h or 12h per day to keep things in check. They require the persons living there to check in at least once a day, they have a nurse signed up for them, usually have a session with the nurse once a week or so, a doctor checks up on them regularly as well. That’s the sort of last resort thing, if one doesn’t want to live in those places, then the government sees it as them choosing to be homeless. Nobody will be forced to get a apartment, nobody is forced to rent an apartment.
And of course properly mentally ill people are usually kept in mental hospitals.
deleted by creator
