Thanks for the mention Henryk, I suppose I will have to reflect on your writing more and write a proper response at some point.

But I thought I should clarify a couple of points about my political beliefs. I do believe in rewarding those who take a risk and try to build a business. Being a social democrat does not mean advocating the kind of system Poland had were private initiative was basically outlawed.

E.g. in Norway corporate democracy primarily start mattering for larger companies with more than 50 employees and then expands at over 200 employees. People starting their own small business should have as much power and control over that as possible in my opinion. These are often not people with a lot of means who are putting a lot of risk and have to put in a lot of effort to make it work. They need reward for that.

Argentina would be interesting to write about at some point. I don't think they are a very good example or a much of a guide to how Norway will develop in the future. Norway built itself as a rich country under social democracy.

Argentina struggle with a combination of weak institutions and a collapsing world market for what they made their money on. Weak institutions is a problem which has plagued all of South America, and was remarked on even back in 1776 by Adam Smith. Nordic countries in countries have been blessed with strong institutions going hundreds of years back.

I don't think whether you swim or sink can be simplified to how leftist or right-wing policies you follow. It matters but it is hard to make up for e.g. lack of education, weak institution, corruption etc.

And I think one should be careful about drawing too strong conclusions from extreme outliers like the communist dictatorships in the East Block. The outcome for a country like Poland under communist rule doesn't say much about what the outcome of social democracy would be.

Likewise I think the marvelous of capitalism are greatly exaggurated by looking the US. American success cannot be attributed to free-wheeling capitalism and individualism alone. The US is almost alone in this world in terms of abundance of natural resources. The US has favorable geography in almost every regard that matters economically: Plenty of rich agricultural lands, large efficient wateryways like the Mississipi, hydro power, iron ore, coal, oil, uranium, forest. There is almost nothing that is crucial in building a strong economy which the US has a lack of.

Couple this with an enormous internal market, strong cultural cohesion, and no wars on home soil since 1865 and you have a recipe for success, capitalism or not.

I think the developmen of Finland tells a more impressive story. It is a country with quite limited resources, which struggle with numerous devastaing wars and seatbacks, tiny home market, and yet managed to become a rich and prosperous country. And it did that with extensive involvement of government and many cheerished principles of social democracy.

Many impressive stories like China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are also places were government played a central role although in a different manner.