Hmmm I cannot say I agree with pretty much anything this Tim Worstall guy says about Rhineland capitalist model. He doesn't seem to get either what the Nordic model is about nor what the Rhineland model is about.

I have looked at the GDP growth numbers, and Tim is just wrong. The Rhineland countries have showed stronger growth than the Anglo-Saxon ones like US, Canada and the UK since end of WWII. I am using Maddison GDP data to compare.

Also he writes this in 2009, a year after the financial crisis, ironically caused by the Anglo-Saxon style capitalism that he seems to cheerish.

He conveniently "forgets" to mention why Germany did so poorly in the crash. Their banks had been conservative for a long time avoiding the crazyness that led to the 2008 crash. Eventually cheerleaders for Anglo-Saxon style free-wheeling capitalism pushed aside the Rhineland capitalists in German banks and jumped on the subprime madness just when Americans was starting to pull out.

Had they actually stuck with their conservative Rhineland model instead of flirting with Anglo-Saxon style capitalism they would have carried through way better than the US and the UK.

Tim Woorstall also doesn't seem to realize that Nordic income tax rates are not exceptionally high. Nordic taxation as percentage of GDP is not high due to high income tax rates. But I leave that as an excercise to the reader to figure out why.

Anyone curious can try e.g. the Norwegian income tax calculator. I doubt you will find it significantly higher than elsewhere: https://skattekalkulator.app.skatteetaten.no/#/