IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
I never wanted this to go that far. But honestly do you think your knowledge of the problematics is deep enough?
It's regretable how you believe that the wealth of your country is based on the correct "distribution of wealth". Europe is doomed in case should many people believe so.
The wealth of Scandinavia is based on old-days protestant morale, responsibility and work ethics of past generations of Scandinavians. Not on the proper "distribution of wealth". That's just the way to dilute the fruits of hard labor of former generations of your fathers and grandfathers who got you where you are right now.
I think we both know what this "distribution of wealth" is an euphemism for.
My knowledge may never reach the same level as your detailed knowledge of Scandinavian societies...
Let's look at Norway. We got lucky with enormous oilfields laying at our doorstep. What usually happens when wealth of this proportion suddenly floods society? Corruption, excessive spending and other unwanted negative consequences. Look at Russia and most other countrys that experienced similar things. A few get rich, most people never even notice the difference.
And your hint towards communism couldn't be more far off.
There's a difference between biting your fingernails and biting your arm off.
The success of nordic countries is because of strong public education system and good public health system. Protestant work-ethic doesn't hurt either.
Too bad the liberal immigration policy is starting to cripple societies, there already areas you can call ghettos in Oslo, Malmö and Stockholm.
That has nothing to do with immigration, it is a question of incredibly poor urban planning causing segregation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyEuro
The feeling I have in every second small Czech city. And the feeling I had when I visited Malmo.
And that is the visual part of the complete failure that miljonprogrammet was.
Big chunks of concrete built for low income people built far away from the rest of the city, I still wonder how the hell anyone could think that was a good idea.
Yes but you cannot actually prevent this. It's a civilization cycle. Our modern economies are based on growth. Non-present growth is a grain of sand in the clockwork. And nothing can grow sky high: in the beginning you can support the growth by better qualified work force (improved education system, proficiency and efficiency), but the problem is every civilization that reaches certain level of saturation and luxury somehows stops reproducing. The infant/woman ratio declines.
Thus you have to supply the demand for the workforce by incoming individuals. And that's the start of the civilization turnaround. New people will come, they will be more dynamic, more hungry for success etc.
I can see it here as well, we have a lot of Vietnamese immigrants and their second generation are the best students at elementary schools and high schools. Perfectly integrated, speak the language. They are the go-geters, they want it more, they're ready to try harder and sacrifice more to be successful.
The first generation of immigrants always assumes low-grade jobs (as this sector is always happily abandoned by the locals), but the second or third generation will take a bite of the cake of captaining the industry, business etc.
Despite our differences of opinion, this post is spot on.
My knowledge may never reach the same level as your detailed knowledge of Scandinavian societies...
I lived (and will live again in a short while) in Denmark, my long time girlfriend is from Iceland. I'd be very careful to pass any judgements on my knowledge of the Scandinavian society if I were you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Brent
Let's look at Norway. We got lucky with enormous oilfields laying at our doorstep. What usually happens when wealth of this proportion suddenly floods society? Corruption, excessive spending and other unwanted negative consequences. Look at Russia and most other countrys that experienced similar things. A few get rich, most people never even notice the difference.
Your comparison of uncomparable is unfair. Norway is a steady country glued together by stable humane society, constitutional monarchy and historical protestantism ways.
Russia on the other hand is a country that never ever experienced any sort of democracy. In 1917 they leapt from absolutist Tsarist monarchy straight to totalitarian communism. I don't want to take any credit from your country, I defend Scandinavian countries as a model worth following (in terms of civic stability and open society, constitutional monarchy) wherever I go. But do NOT compare yourself to Russia. You had a whole different starting point.
They killed their Tsar and turned the whole country upside down. You crowned a Danish prince your own Norwegian king.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Brent
And your hint towards communism couldn't be more far off.
There's a difference between biting your fingernails and biting your arm off.
Actually I meant socialism, but I agree on the matter of proportion. I wish our left-wing politicians could distinguish the proportion as well as you can.
Was it me or did many of the players from Norway look about 5'8?
__________________
George McPhee....The Teflon GM. 15 years of failure and counting....
6 - Number of playoff series the Capitals have won since George McPhee took over as General Manager in 1997 (which makes him the third-longest-tenured GM in the League), three of which came in McPhee's first season on the job.
And that is the visual part of the complete failure that miljonprogrammet was.
Big chunks of concrete built for low income people built far away from the rest of the city, I still wonder how the hell anyone could think that was a good idea.
In our case it was we had a population explosion after the WWII and the centrally controlled communist economy needed to deal with a dire need of lodging somehow. They certainly thought concrete-instant housing will be the long term cheap answer.
I think in your case, guys, it might have been similar as Malmo is immigrant-heavy, maybe they opted to build the infrastructure this way (I remember one remarkably ugly concrete mall in Malmo that strongly reminded me of home).
Which is a shame, since Scandinavian design tends to be chic. However there are a couple of concrete uglies even in Copenhagen. Maybe it was the seventies??
It's a bad spiral. The interest in hockey is low, so media doesn't write about it.
Hockey is the second biggest sport in Norway based on attendance, after football / soccer. Our biggest newspapers writes about norwegian hockey alot actually. And teams like Sparta, Vålerenga, Storhamar ++ draws a good attendance, in my opinion.
Like said earlier by others, the problem is that we have to few rinks, and hockey is just played in certain parts of Norway. Mostly in the east. From Hamar / Lillehammer to Sarpsborg / Fredrikstad and of course Oslo + Asker / Lørenskog. And there is a groving hockey culture in Stavanger, and Trondheim there has been culture for hockey.
In my town we have one rink, but i haven't played there yet. I usually play on the pond during the winter.
Norwegian hockey needs more money from the government to develop better hockey programs and build more rinks.
I think norwegians know only football (I think it has something to do with England because Norwegians seem to be crazy about everything English).
Correct. Our national broadcasting channel started sending english football on the television during the 60's, so English Premier League is huge in Norway. Both Manchester United and Liverpool supporter branches have like 30-40.000 members each (!) here in Norway.
Despite our differences of opinion, this post is spot on.
Strange I don't think we differ that much. I was under the impression that you mistook my rather longish historical discourse for disregard towards Scandinavian ways. I'm far from that.
I just don't like the stereotyping that seems to linger. And dislike the attitude of some Scandinavians (Englishmen, Americans, etc...) to think of themselves as better just because their father's hard work got them where they are now. But don't get me wrong there. Many Czech people apply the same erratic superior attitude towards Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians etc. and I hate it just the same. Because it's by concept the same thing. That's what I meant with my reference to general human nature and goodness/badness in human regardless of the passport.
That's what I meant with my disgust towards xenophoby in any form and shape.
So we have discovered why Sweden seemed to get ahead of the pack and develop a hockey culture why Norway didn't. I'm curious now as well as to why Finland also developed a very strong hockey culture. How did that happen? Was it the proximity to Russia?
There are others who could answer this question better than I could, but I believe that the Finnish government made a conscious decision to spend money on hockey infrastructure in the 50's and 60's, which led to a boom in the game's popularity.
More recently, the government has been spending money on indoor multi-sport facilities, with the result that tennis and football are becoming more and more popular. I'm not sure how much of this comes at the expense of hockey.
Other Finns out there can tell me if I'm wrong about any of that!
Swedes and Norwegians often ask me how strong an influence Russian culture has on Finland and are surprised to hear that the cultural influence of Russia is really not very strong. I'm not saying anything good or bad about Russian culture, just that Finnish culture is much more influenced by its neighbours to the west than by those to the east. That's a big tangent, though, which can be brought to the lounge if anyone wants my opinion on why that is...
You can do this all day... if the Swiss and Czechs are good at hockey, why do the Germans lag behind?
If Britain played a major role in the development of hockey and was one of the global powers in the early days of the game, why can't they even qualify for the top division of the IIHF today?
It all comes down to lack of interest fueling systemic lack of investment.
In our case it was we had a population explosion after the WWII and the centrally controlled communist economy needed to deal with a dire need of lodging somehow. They certainly thought concrete-instant housing will be the long term cheap answer.
I think in your case, guys, it might have been similar as Malmo is immigrant-heavy, maybe they opted to build the infrastructure this way (I remember one remarkably ugly concrete mall in Malmo that strongly reminded me of home).
Which is a shame, since Scandinavian design tends to be chic. However there are a couple of concrete uglies even in Copenhagen. Maybe it was the seventies??
There weren't actually that many immigrants in Sweden when the national program that spawned all these ugly concrete ghettos began back in the mid 60's, they were initially built to provide "quality" living for the poor who had previously been living in old, worn down and overpopulated parts of the cities, which is all good, the problem was that they were built with unrealistic goals of creating a Social Democratic influenced functionalist "paradise" for the working class, to make the people who lived there into "good citizens".
The shocking thing is that it actually worked for a while at the start, but then the reality of how incredibly stupid it is to place thousands of poor and low income people in the same place caught up with the project.
There are others who could answer this question better than I could, but I believe that the Finnish government made a conscious decision to spend money on hockey infrastructure in the 50's and 60's, which led to a boom in the game's popularity.
I don't know where I heard this, but the story goes that Finland and Norway, at the time about equal when it came to hockey, both were presented with this plan for investment in hockey infrastructure as you call it. Finland took it and blossomed, Norway didn't and fell way behind.
There weren't actually that many immigrants in Sweden when the national program that spawned all these ugly concrete ghettos began back in the mid 60's, they were initially built to provide "quality" living for the poor who had previously been living in old, worn down and overpopulated parts of the cities, which is all good, the problem was that they were built with unrealistic goals of creating a Social Democratic influenced functionalist "paradise" for the working class, to make the people who lived there into "good citizens".
The fact your democratic administration sported the same phrases as our enlightened communist leaders is just gorgeous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franck
The shocking thing is that it actually worked for a while at the start, but then the reality of how incredibly stupid it is to place thousands of poor and low income people in the same place caught up with the project.
I guess that end was utterly inevitable, since I think it's a general human need to establish his own household and be a "master of his own castle". Thus as the economic growth proceeded those who managed to succeed in their careers moved out to buy loftier apartments or family houses and the gargantuan concrete working class paradise started to accumulate those who were not "up to the task" for whatever reason.
It's the same situation here after the velvet revolution.
I don't know where I heard this, but the story goes that Finland and Norway, at the time about equal when it came to hockey, both were presented with this plan for investment in hockey infrastructure as you call it. Finland took it and blossomed, Norway didn't and fell way behind.
May have been a good decision though, you can win just one medal at the Olympics for hockey, loads in cross country, biathlon etc.
The East German government made a conscious decision not to support hockey because with a hockey team you commit resources to 20+ athletes and get one medal at most and the fact it's a popular sport elsewhere means it's tougher to penetrate. Instead they used the resources to be a world power in other sports where competition is thinner and more medals can be won. As an example, supporting 1,000 active lugers at a few major facilities will make you a power, supporting 1,000 active hockey players with a few rinks won't get you 10th place.
In a big and complicated way the total clusterf*** that was created by the unrealistic dreams of Swedish politicians and urban planners in the 1960's has created ethnic segregation, yes.
It's a long story that I don't really feel like going into detail on, at least not on a hockey forum.
There are others who could answer this question better than I could, but I believe that the Finnish government made a conscious decision to spend money on hockey infrastructure in the 50's and 60's, which led to a boom in the game's popularity.
More recently, the government has been spending money on indoor multi-sport facilities, with the result that tennis and football are becoming more and more popular. I'm not sure how much of this comes at the expense of hockey.
Other Finns out there can tell me if I'm wrong about any of that!
Swedes and Norwegians often ask me how strong an influence Russian culture has on Finland and are surprised to hear that the cultural influence of Russia is really not very strong. I'm not saying anything good or bad about Russian culture, just that Finnish culture is much more influenced by its neighbours to the west than by those to the east. That's a big tangent, though, which can be brought to the lounge if anyone wants my opinion on why that is...
I do for sure. Is the Finnish civil war in 1920's a reason of the generally west course in a country that was under tsarist Russian rule for a long time? And also the Finnish-Russian war in 1940's (with volunteers from Norway helping on Finnish side?).
My knowledge on that is superficial at best and I would welcome an enlightment.
That's a bit of an over-simplification of a multi-faceted issue. Besides the "racial" part into the segregation was your own contribution. In Francks original comment there is no race. As segregation can be also social, gender, etc. In the case he had on his mind it was a social separation caused by ill-concepted state-subsidized social housing.
Last edited by FreakyEuro*: 02-17-2010 at 02:41 PM.
Reason: additional info
The fact your democratic administration sported the same phrases as our enlightened communist leaders is just gorgeous.
