Voima Weekly #24 – Terms & Conditions

Declaration of Independence, 1776. Bought from photostock.

In the United States, many significant decisions are currently being made. One may support or oppose them, but before forming opinions, it is worth pausing at a more fundamental question: where do these decisions come from, and what are they trying to achieve?

In European discourse, the current president of the United States are assessed through an unusually moralistic and emotionally charged lens. The language is often condemnatory and norm-driven, while analysis remains thin. Rarely is the question asked why decisions are being made, and even more rarely what they are intended to accomplish. Outcomes are examined last - if at all.

At the same time, Europe seems to exist in a constant state of dissatisfaction and complaint regarding U.S. foreign policy. Criticism is abundant, but far less attention is paid to what realistic alternatives actually exist. The operating logic of Finland, and Europe¹ more broadly, is difficult to understand without two closely intertwined phenomena: big government and corporatism.

Big government refers to a mindset in which the state is seen as a large and active actor in the economy and society. High taxation, extensive income transfers, heavy regulation, and a large public sector are not side effects but core instruments of the model. The underlying assumption is that complex societal problems can be managed through centralized steering and an expanding administrative role.

In Finland, this has been coupled with a corporatist operating model. Decisionmaking shifts away from open parliamentary accountability and market competition toward institutional negotiation structures, where power is shared but responsibility is often diffuse. Politics, trade unions, employer organizations, media, and various NGOs form an informal yet powerful network of influence, within which rules are shaped through closed processes and working groups.

In this environment, discussion itself has become an end in its own right. Leadership means participating in continuous debate and remaining aligned with “public opinion.” Yet this debate is not an open weighing of facts, alternatives, and consequences. Instead, it is normatively guided, morally and emotionally framed narrative-management, where acceptable views are defined in advance and deviations are stigmatized. Decisions are indeed “made,” but most often they are compromises between stakeholders that redistribute an existing pie rather than expand it. Discussion is safe. A real decision, one that changes direction rather than merely balances interests- is a risk.

The logic of the United States cannot be understood without returning to its foundational document: the Declaration of Independence (1776). This is not history, but a living framework of thought. The Declaration answers one essential question: why does government exist? Its core idea is simple yet exceptional - human beings possess inherent and inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that precede the state. Government does not grant these rights; its sole legitimacy lies in protecting them.

From this follow three consequences. First, power is delegated, not permanent. Second, government has a structural upper bound: it is a means, not an end. And third, when government ceases to serve its purpose, altering, reducing, or dismantling it is not an anomaly but a feature of the system. Change is not a threat; it is part of the structure.

In the European tradition, the state has historically been viewed as the source of rights and the guarantor of stability. In the American tradition, the state is the guardian of rights, whose size and role can, and must be continuously questioned. This single difference explains more than is often acknowledged.

It is precisely against this backdrop that Trump’s United States is experienced as so disturbing in Europe. It does not operate primarily through negotiation frameworks or symbolic gestures, but instead redefines terms and conditions. Agreements are reopened, government is reduced, and success is measured by outcomes rather than process. Moreover, the U.S. often acts from a position of strength and shows little interest in reshaping its behavior to accommodate European institutions or professional politicians.

The same logic surfaced unexpectedly clearly in my own Executive MBA studies at Hanken. In a course on leading change, I presented an ordinary example: direction was set, responsibilities assigned, and execution initiated. Legal took ownership of contractual review; IT mapped existing operating models and produced efficiency recommendations.

The reactions were not about substance, but about method. Decision-making without extended participatory discussion was perceived as problematic, inappropriate, and compared to a military model. The moment was illuminating. It revealed how deeply ingrained the assumption of constant inclusion has become, and how easily clear accountability is interpreted as authoritarian. Yet my experience reinforced a different conclusion: particularly in change situations, ambiguity rarely decreases through more discussion. It usually decreases only once direction is decided and execution begins.

Europe’s big-government model has long eroded both decision-making capacity and economic dynamism. Debt rises, structures stiffen, and responsibility dissipates into process. In this sense, one of the few genuinely good pieces of news is that the United States is not retreating. It is renegotiating terms and conditions - across trade, energy, government, and foreign policy. At the same time, the U.S. is sharply reducing income taxation.

The thought experiment is simple: if households and SMEs retain more of what they earn, the economy recovers through activity, not subsidies. Companies invest, hire, and grow. Families gain flexibility and confidence in the future. All of this points in one direction. The United States is entering a new phase - not as a slogan, but as a structural project. Reduced government, lower taxes, and the restoration of visible decision-making form a Western renaissance led by the U.S.

And that is precisely why this is also good news for Europe. The current model does not hold. America’s move will force Europe either to reform - or to fall behind. In this configuration, pressure is not a threat. It is an opportunity.

Long Russell 2000. Long gold.²

–Marko Viinikka
Founder, CEO
Voima Gold Oy

Disclaimer: Voima Weeklies are the personal writings of the undersigned. They do not necessarily represent the official view of Voima Gold Oy or any other company, nor do they constitute investment advice or a recommendation to purchase securities.