Why Denmark isn’t the utopian fantasy Bernie Sanders describes

"The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by -- now dwindling -- oil revenues. In Norway’s case, of course, it’s no secret."

Lots of places have oil wealth, including the US. But whereas in the US the oil wealth goes to enrich private investors, in places like Denmark it goes to paying for a generous welfare state, with benefits like healthcare and college education for all.

Holy straw man, Batman. I'm pretty sure "utopian paradise" is not the same as "sensibly doing some things differently from trying to fit every enterprise and institution into the investor-owned private model."

It seems like this is a bunch of anecdotes about different countries-- Denmark, Norway, Sweden -- that show they each have some problems. Straw man defeated.

Uhh... the British journalist's interview which makes up the meat of this article is a hit job against Denmark. The tone seems distinctly crafted for the American political audience, however. I can imagine that in some part, this article is an oblique attack piece on Sanders' pitches to the public.

Let's destroy this awful interviewee stanza by stanza:

"The difference is, few actually actively seek to move to Scandinavia, for obvious reasons: the weather is appalling, the taxes are the highest in the world, the cost of living is similarly ridiculous, the languages are impenetrable, the food is (still) awful for the most part and, increasingly, these countries are making it very clear they would prefer foreigners to stay away."

None of these items are effective criticisms of their economic or social models, and are instead a weird hybrid of xenophobia, actively alleging xenophobia on the part of the Scandinavians while criticizing their different foods and unique languages. The dig at the taxes and weather are both irrelevant, too: these things do not un-make a high standard of living.

"Denmark, meanwhile, promotes itself as a "green pioneer" and finger wags at the world about CO2 emissions, and yet it regularly beats the U.S. and virtually every other country on earth in terms of its per capita ecological footprint. For all their wind turbines, the Danes still burn a lot of coal and drive a lot of cars, their country is home to the world’s largest shipping company (Mærsk), and the region’s largest air hub.

Sweden is supposedly "neutral" (it’s not, and has not been for decades), yet since the days when it sold iron ore to Hitler, its economy has always benefited from its arms industry, which is one of the world’s largest."

So they're undesirable because they aren't as green as they claim to be, and they're not as neutral as they claim to be. Not seeing how these things matter when compared to the US, a decidedly non-neutral, non-green, arms and violence exportation behemoth. Once again, these very minor negatives don't really pan out as criticisms of the Scandinavian way of life.

"The Norwegians have fallen prey to precisely the same kind of problems as other oil-rich states: their economy depends far too much on one industry (oil), they’ve taken their foot off the gas in terms of their work ethic, and now all young Norwegians want to do is be "something in the media" or open a cupcake place."

Uh, well, that's quite a fucking gargantuan logical leap made. An economy partially reliant on oil profits does not have anything to do with young people not knowing what they want to do with their lives in explicit terms. I am not sure how an author could write such a concept in good faith.

"You describe the Danes as having a strong sense of work-life balance – specifically, being much more focused on life than work. What are the positives and negatives of that attitude?

Positives: Danes spend more time with their families. Negatives: Danes spend more times with their families. Plus, they have run up huge private debt levels, and no one answers the phone on a Friday afternoon.

Danes are also experiencing a rising debt level, and a lower proportion of people working. Are these worrying signs for its economy or the country’s model?

Yes, many economists have specifically warned of the Danes’ private debt levels. Perhaps more seriously, productivity has been somewhat stagnant and there is a dire skills shortage."

Well, I don't quite know what to say here. It almost sounds like that the author is advocating some kind of late capitalist hell where workers don't get to spend any time with their families if they want to keep their jobs. I suppose nobody can be so dense as to suggest that this constitutes a higher standard of living, but you never know. The complaint about a skills shortage smacks of capitalist dreck; I am reminded intimately of the much-trumpeted yet utterly unempirically supported "STEM shortage" here in the US.

"Denmark has the highest direct and indirect taxes in the world, and you don’t need to be a high earner to make it into the top tax bracket of 56% (to which you must add 25% value-added tax, the highest energy taxes in the world, car import duty of 180%, and so on). How the money is spent is kept deliberately opaque by the authorities. Danes do tend to feel that they get value for money, but we should not overlook the fact that the majority of Danes either work for, or receive benefits from, the welfare state."

Complaining that the Danes have high taxes is a uniquely American (jealous, hateful) criticism. They get a large portion of that money returned directly via social services. They are okay with socialism, because they feel supported by it. Read some Piketty if you want to understand more about the way their socialism works redistributively; the bottom line is that it works for the population. I guess this passage is meant to make Americans feel upset at the Danes somehow, but once again, it just reinforces the idea that their standard of living and quality of life are much, much higher.

So yeah, a big dumb straw man laid out. Sure, you can fantasize about cities on the hill and what not, but it's a bit harder to say something factual along the lines of "Scandinavian countries don't work" or that they don't have the highest possible standard of living.