Deep River

Deep River: A Novel by Karl Marlantes

This book explores the history of a few related Finnish people who came to the Pacific Northwest around the turn of the 20th century. They were primarily attracted by the logging industry. It was a tough industry with hard work and serious chances of injury and death. Men were attracted to the income with some looking at the chance of going on their own. One woman was attracted with the possibility of organizing a large union to help the loggers. The book slowly goes through their experiences and struggles with the local impacts of widespread events like wards, union activities and prohibition. At times it has interludes describing events instead of having the characters live through them. Even so, the book is quite long and it can be difficult to tell the characters apart. The historical settings can almost be identified, but even parts of that have been fictionalized. The female union organizer gets a bit too much coverage, while I would like to see more coverage of the evolution of the society from rough-and-tumble to legitimate towns.

How Finland Survived Stalin: From Winter War to Cold War, 1939-1950

How Finland Survived Stalin: From Winter War to Cold War, 1939-1950 by Kimmo Rentola translated by Richard Robinson

Finland had an odd position during World War II. They were aligned with Germany, but never part of the Axis powers. They fought the Winter War against Russia. German alignment was seen as a necessary defensive measure. Stalin had underestimated the ability of Finnish army and suffered significantly during the hostilities. The Finns paid were willing to pay reparations and cede territory. However, they were not pushovers. They refused to become a Soviet satellite. They maintained their culture and political system. They were one of the few European capitals that was never occupied during the war. Stalin seems to have some respect for the Finns and was willing to let them be. The book was original written in Finnish and relied on many Russian sources that are now locked away again due to the Ukraine war.

Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

First the bad: Upheaval is an academic book pitched at a popular audience. The narrative can be very long and detailed for a popular book. (But at the same time lacking in details for an academic book.) The audiobook narration further emphasizes the dryness. The author from the outset states that it is not a comprehensive analysis, but just a focused view of case studies of modern upheaval in a few countries that he is familiar with.
With the bad out of the way, the book has a nice story to tell. Countries and people got through periods of significant "stress". Sometimes this comes from the outside. Other times it is purely internal. It may happen in response to a single event, or it may be something that happens gradually over time. Using a "crisis framework", he analyzes the different ways that they react.
Finland shares a very long border with Russia and has a language and culture very different from the Russian and Scandinavian neighbors. When attacked by Russia, Finland did not give in, but fought back against overwhelming odds. This allowed them to remain independent (even as other Baltic States were subsumed by Russia.) After the war, Russia demanded reparations and trials of Finnish leaders for "war crimes". Finland acknowledged their week position relative to Russia and complied. (By charging the leaders with war crimes, they were also able to dictate the "punishment") The reparations paid to Russia were a sacrifice that benefited the country by forcing industrialization. Finland was further able to maintain good relations with Russia and western Europe by self censoring. They willingly sacrificed some democratic principals in order to maintain freedom and democracy. This seemed an anathema to many in the west, but it served Finland quite well.
Other countries did not have such a positive experience. Chile was one of the most stable democracies in South America. However, democratically elected Allende moved too far to the left for his military, thus setting the position for a coup and the rise of Pinochet. He stayed in power longer than expected and killed a large number of leftests. However, he still allowed for a peaceful transition, even though only a narrow majority voted to not extend his term. The new government allowed for Chile for all Chileans and kept many of Pinochet's positive reforms. The country had to go through the challenging experience to realize that compromise is the best policy.
Similarly Indonesia found itself ripe for a dictator after the leader became too involved with external affairs at the expense of internal needs. Unlike Finland, Indonesia had very little national identity, and needed to foster one. Corruption was a big problem and needed to be reined in.
Australia had a national identity tied up in England. Despite being in a totally different part of the world, Australians thought of themselves as British. Only after the fall of Singapore in World War II, did Australia realize they had to depend on themselves more. They gradually moved away from the "white Australia" to a more cosmopolitan, independent country. (They there was a shock of policy changes that were carried out at the start of one government.)
Japan had change thrust upon them. After Perry sailed in, Japan was no longer isolated. The leaders realized they could not compete with the western powers, so they spent time trying to learn what they could from them. They picked and chose to adopt the best policies. They realistically knew what they were capable of. However, by World War 2, they had built up a significant military and the new "young guns" lacked they global insight of their elders. Thus, they went on a multi-front war that would be difficult to win, and ended up being defeated. Today, Japan still has some trouble with introspection. History courses treat Japan as a "victim" in World War 2 (due to the nuclear bombs) without regarding that they were the aggressor. This has lead to weaknesses in relationships with its neighbors. (Germany, on the other hand, has apologized profusely and done much to prevent the Nazi past from resurfacing.) Japan also faces on oncoming demographic crisis with a very low birth rates and almost no immigration.
Countries and individuals got through many crises in their lifetime. Being honest in the approach to them can be the difference between a positive growth experience and a long struggle.

The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life

The Nordic countries tend to show up near the top of well-being surveys. What can we learn from them for our own culture? As a big fan of Nordic culture, I expected to buy into everything in this book. Alas, I found myself being extra critical. Some of the ideas seem pretty clear, if counter intuitive. You want to increase women's pay gap relative to men? Provide for better paternity leave.
Education was a little more questionable. It seems everybody likes to pick the part of the Finnish education success that best suits them. The author claims Finnish education was reformed primarily around equity. All schools were high quality and everybody had access to the highest level of education. (Even "private" schools would fall closely under the similar government scheme.) Alas, much of that is missed in the US. Seattle schools are obsessed with equity. Yet, the implementation method often involves lowering the bar. There is also the matter of private schools. If the public school district provides an equally bad experience for all, yet there are abundant, high cost, high quality private offerings is that really equitable? The author also noted some problems with "school choice" in other Scandinavian countries. Public school advocates will use this to fight against vouchers and charter schools. However, the school districts get into the same game with open enrollment, option schools and magnet schools. It is just school choice controlled by the education bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is the real difference. US schools have a significantly greater number of administrators per student. They also rely extensively on standardized tests. The antagonistic union situation results in teachers being treated more as cogs in a system rather than skilled professionals as they are in Scandinavia. School districts are also fragmented and rely on a local property tax base for funding. Nordic countries tend to be fairly homogeneous populations, however, there are plenty of states that are similar in population and homogeneity to Nordic countries. They could likely reform their education system to have similar success, but there will be big fights from both the parents and schools in order to get there.
The book lauds the social welfare benefits of the Nordic countries, while lamenting the lack of high cost of medicine and lack of social benefits in the United States. Taxes, however, are not too different in both. What gives? The United States often tries to do "socialism on the cheap". Rather than give a benefit like healthcare to everybody, it is only given out to a certain population under an income threshold. There are also a large number of tax breaks for different behaviors or activities. This makes for a highly complex system that is in many ways highly restrictive in behavior. You arguably have a choice in health plans in the United States. However, medicaid is only for the poor, medicare for the elderly, VA for veterans. There is a huge tax subsidy for private health insurance plans - but only if purchased through an employer. If you want to purchase insurance on your own, you lose out on most government largess (and tend to pay higher rates on top of that.) And this just gets you insurance which may or may not let you see the doctor you want. (And there is no guarantee that you can even purchase a policy that will let you see them.)
The Nordic model of benefits provides similar benefits to everyone. Anybody has access to the same health care at the same cost. Education, parental leave, unemployment and other benefits are provided by the government. This frees companies and citizens to focus on adding value rather that entrepreneurial risks will leave their family on the street. These benefits are covered by taxes. However, the tax rates are mostly flat, instead of highly graduated. They are still somewhat progressive, but not obsessively so as in the United States. In the US, it seems too much effort is spent on making a "progressive" tax system and then limiting benefits to those that are "in need". Then the tax code is filled with a bazillion loopholes to prevent these high taxes from negatively impacting "special interests". The result is a lower class that receives a large amount of benefits and pays no taxes and an upper class that can spend the effort to legally avoid taxes. This leaves a middle class that earns to much to qualify for benefits, yet doesn't have the resources to avoid taxes and thus pays away a large portion of their income. Public benefits tend to be stigmatized and associated with the "poor". (However, tax breaks carry no such stigma - even though they are essentially just another "payment" from the government. Would removing income validation change things? (It could also reduce some incentives for "reducing" income and working under the table to qualify for benefits.)
The book ends with the author becoming a US citizen. She was willing to sacrifice the Nordic safety net after falling in love with an American. Despite the challenges, there are advantages of the US way. I had met a Dane who was similarly desirous to move to the US due to the more dynamic start up culture. There may be something in the lack of safety net that pushes people to work harder. (Though there may also be the advantage of a much larger market.) There are many places in the US that would love to have a similar social welfare system. However, attempts often fall victim to entrenched interests (such as insurance companies and government agencies.) How can the United States keep the entrepreneurial spirit and move beyond third-world social welfare?