The Gammelost reaction to Norway's Rich/Poor question should have stuck with: Free markets are played according to rules based on local morals; if we agree that high social welfare spendings are worthwhile, we raise the taxes required to support them; perhaps Norwegian values are more "moral" than ours. The problem is that he's overreaching. For example, the gap between fithy rich and middle class is not Europe's strong suit; Bill Gates is an extreme red herring that proves the rule in that European money is mainly inherited, rarely made. Movement between classes is tougher, and social diversity awful; it's far tougher to be a "guest worker" and try to integrate. The examples used by the "obnoxious" article are trivial, but are they used to prove the point? BTW, what does the author's sexual preference have to do with anything? It's a stretch to say he lives there because of the union-partnership law; perhaps his friend wanted to live near his family? If a conservative mentioned it we'd be all over him as a bigot. I agree with the observations about the unnecessary focus on disposable income, but that's exactly what the born-to-wealth aristocracy has. I'd hate to try to start a car factory in Norway.