It is not even a week since Prime Minister Sanna Marin (sd) brought the EU stimulus package to Parliament for discussion.
And again, it will be months before the numerous bills on the package are completed for approval or rejection by Parliament.
In other words, the stimulus package does not exist and not a single EU revitalization euro is coming until the Finnish Parliament and the legislators of all other EU countries have discussed and approved the agreements on the package.
Still, the stimulus package and the stimulus funds expected from it in Finland already appear in the government's next year's revenue and expenditure estimate presented by the government this week as if they were unpaid state revenues.
In the descriptions of the budget proposal, the government describes the "Finland's Sustainable Growth Program", which is to be supported "with the help of EU recovery funding ... EUR 0.9-1.2 billion over several years" to support the "green transition".
Finland's share of the stimulus package's grants has been tentatively estimated at three billion euros, which in the government's opinion would seem to accumulate approximately one billion euros a year for the needs of the "green transition" for three years.
Yet budgeting unconfirmed billions of imagery into state revenue is nowhere near as strange as the government's general interpretation of the billions recycled through the EU as free revenue for Finland.
Of course, writing down the costs of this pattern would be difficult, as not a single free euro is coming to Finland from the EU's stimulus package.
Instead, it is an outrageously expensive debt relief for the Finnish state, the cost of which can be estimated - but apparently impossible to openly acknowledge.
Spraying, self-deception, or stupidity?
The EU's corona recovery package - or the recovery instrument as the marketing of the figure suggests - is in itself pursuing general interest objectives, such as the recovery of the 'European' economy.
But whatever its objectives, it is also a questionable debt stance, whose ingenious and obscure contractual and administrative structures are intended to circumvent the EU's hitherto sacred requirement of a balanced EU budget and a ban on debt financing for EU budget expenditure.
Despite that ban, one of the key features of the stimulus package is the financing of budget spending with the worst debt of as much as EUR 750 billion in the history of the EU.
What makes the package inventive is the ingenious art of debt, the fact that debt financing is sought from the financial markets in the name of a special fund set up outside the EU budget and the same amounts are brought into the official budget by recording the fund's debts as EU revenue.
This debt reduction seems to have gone to the Finnish government as well, as the government considers the arrangement to fit into the framework of agreements prohibiting EU debt financing.
But if last week it seemed that the EU is pulling the Finnish government out of the net and even succeeding, now it is already more difficult to stay on the cart, which is pulling Finland even more, the EU or Finland's own government.
The billions of imaginations in the budget proposal presented on Wednesday suggest that the government is even pulling itself out of it.
Only it remains unclear whether this is deliberate spraying, mass fraud, or sheer stupidity.
But in any case, it is a sign that one of Finland's most expensive and stupid state financing transactions of all time is pending, of which none of the killings arriving in Finland are free state income but, on the contrary, outrageously expensive debt recycling.
Seems like a relentless steaming
No one knows the exact distribution of the stimulus package's grants or costs between the various EU countries, as the final distribution of grants is due to be agreed in 2022 and the cost to be agreed when the EU financial framework for 2058 is agreed at the latest.
So far, the government has relied on preliminary estimates that Finland would receive more than three billion euros in grants from the stimulus fund and would be responsible for paying off the fund's debts in the future by more than six billion euros.
Either amount may become higher or lower before all amounts have been agreed and paid.
However, if, like the government, its own assumptions are relied on and the estimates of the EU stimulus package are real, only one question can be deduced from them:
On what basis are the estimated but uncertain grants of more than three billion euros already to be found in the government's budget intentions as if it were any state revenue - but Finland's contribution is nowhere to be seen?
If there is any explanation for the one-sided selective presentation other than a more relentless flattery than the EU's debt pull, it is difficult for a bystander to suddenly realize.
However, the EU openly describes its indebtedness and the fact that the stimulus package is based on a large amount of debt to be repaid in due course.
This should also be freshly known to the Finnish government, as the benefits and other benefits of the arrangement were presented to Parliament, including the long repayment period described as an insurance premium.
Price too hard to talk about
As a financial measure by the State, the pattern of the Recovery Fund pursues exactly the same thing as the State taking on more debt by assumed grants in its own name and preparing to repay that debt by 2058 as the Recovery Fund's debts are due.
With the difference that the more than EUR 3 billion to be raised with own debt would be available immediately and not within three years - and without separate EU Commission guidelines and European Council approval procedures for the use of funds.
And with the even greater difference that, with its own debt financing, the state would at any time have access to the same amount of stimulus money at a fraction of the price of the EU pattern - or a lot more money at the same price.
Probably just the outrageous cost difference between the EU's "free" stimulus money and the state's own fundraising explains why the government wants to talk about stimulus grants but keep quiet about the price.
My debt would be almost free
A straightforward calculation between about EUR 3 billion in stimulus money and about EUR 6 billion in costs gives the impression that the state will pay approximately two euros for every euro received from the stimulus fund.
That’s a lot - but it’s not enough, as the likely price of the arrangement is even more cheeky than that “buy one, pay two” double price.
The government's estimate of a contribution of more than six billion euros is based on a schematic reduction that Finland will bear the debts financing the stimulus fund grants with the same 1.7 per cent share as is applied to EU membership fees.
Such a reduction ignores at least two factors that increase Finland's share of the cost of the pattern.
First, the schematic and non-inflationary increase in EU budgetary practices, by which the EU is likely to increase the recovery fund by an annual increase of 2%, is likely to be disregarded, from base year 2018 until the end of the fund's growth year 2023.
This schematic increase can delay Finland's share of the debt to more than seven billion euros.
Secondly, interest and other costs on EU debts are ignored.
Bond market participants are paying the EU the same interest rates as the French state pays on its own bonds.
That would mean that the stimulus fund would have received 30-year debt, for example, at around 0.25% this week.
It is little, but not as little as the Finnish state's own debt financing costs.
Finland's 30-year market interest rate has been about 0.1 per cent this week, which is half as close as the EU would probably pay.
The increase in inflation that increases the stimulus fund and the interest cost accruing on the EU's debts mean that this package is even more expensive for Finland than the price of one euro for two.
Buy three, pay eight
The recovery fund and its debts will exist for the first time at least until 2058, ie for more than 40 years.
Even if interest rates remained the same at that time as the longest-lasting comparable 30-year market interest rates are now, there would be a huge difference between the costs of Finland and the recovery fund.
The 0.25% annual interest rate assumed for the Recovery Fund here would accrue EUR 730 million in cumulative interest expenses on Finland's corresponding debt component of approximately EUR 7.3 billion in 40 years after inflation increases.
In this way, a little over EUR 8 billion of the EU's EUR 3.3 billion in stimulus money, which the Finnish government has treated as free income, must be paid, together with interest.
The difference between the amount received from the Recovery Fund and the amount paid to it in due course is closer to EUR 5 billion.
If, on the other hand, the Finnish state were to finance its rejuvenated stimulus money of EUR 3.3 billion for free with the state's own borrowing, the price would be EUR 132 million in 40 years, assuming an interest rate of 0.1%.
If the same calculation exercise is reversed, it is revealed that at the same total price of more than EUR 8 billion, the state would have access to more than EUR 8 billion of its own stimulus instead of more than EUR 3 billion in “free” EU borrowing.
If, on the other hand, an important purpose for Finland as a whole is to revitalize other EU countries, it would also be cheaper to take on debt in the Finnish state's own name and send money to other EU countries.
As a financial transaction, the stimulus fund seems such a nonsensical inequality in Finnish that at least the State Audit Office would think that it is missing the pattern - and demanding a detailed report from the government on the real causes, consequences - and price of this debt reduction.