LHV co-owner: Estonia argues too much over dividing the pie, not enough about growing it
LHV bank co-owner Rain Lõhmus says Estonian society has lost focus, spending its energy on debating how to redistribute existing resources rather than how to grow the economy. He also warns against excessive state control over private life.
Rain Lõhmus, co-owner of LHV bank, said in an interview with the program "Ochevidets" that Estonian public discourse has drifted away from the key question of how to accelerate economic growth. He argued that debate increasingly centers on redistributing existing resources — who should pay more taxes and how much money should go toward social spending or defense.
Lõhmus believes Estonia is trying to achieve too many goals at once — being green, strong in defense, and socially generous — without ever agreeing on a clear growth target, meaning none of these ambitions is fully realized. He referenced Steve Jobs' idea that achieving something requires not just choosing good ideas but also saying no to many other good ideas.
Warning on tax increases
The banker warned that if the state keeps raising spending without corresponding economic growth, the next step will likely be raising taxes on wealthier residents. He said such a policy could backfire, prompting the wealthiest people to leave the country while removing the incentive for others to start and grow businesses.
Views on the workforce and politics
Lõhmus previously caused public controversy by stating that companies should regularly let go of their weakest employees for the sake of efficiency. In the interview, he stood by this view, comparing LHV to a professional sports team and Estonia as a whole to a collection of amateur sports clubs. He acknowledged that not everyone wants to live at that pace, and that this is fine.
Asked whether he plans to run in the upcoming elections, Lõhmus said no, describing himself as more of a "hero of capitalist labor" than a "people's hero."
Privacy versus state control
Lõhmus said he is not afraid of having his phone tapped, since he assumes it could be monitored anyway. He argued that a far greater threat to privacy today comes from access to large sets of digital data, such as years of bank account records, which can reveal a much more detailed personal profile than phone conversations. He criticized the notion that state or organizational access to large personal data sets benefits the public, saying this is exactly the justification totalitarian societies use for total surveillance.
