The Scandinavian story actually supports free-market economics more than big-government advocacy. Understanding the historical timeline is essential.

From approximately 1870 to 1970, Scandinavian countries were among the most free-market economies in the world. Sweden had no minimum wage, low taxes, light regulation, and strong property rights. During this century of economic freedom, Sweden went from one of Europe's poorest countries to one of its richest. The prosperity was built under small government.

In the 1970s-1990s, Sweden expanded its government dramatically — raising taxes, increasing regulation, expanding the welfare state, and growing the public sector. The results were swift and negative. Economic growth stagnated. No new net jobs were created in the private sector between 1950 and 2000. Innovation slowed. IKEA's founder moved to Switzerland for tax reasons. Sweden dropped from the 4th richest country per capita in the world to 14th.

Starting in the 1990s, Sweden reformed back toward free markets: cut corporate taxes, introduced school vouchers, partially privatized social security, deregulated industries, and reduced government spending as a share of GDP from about 67% to 49%. Growth resumed.

Denmark followed a similar pattern. After economic stagnation, it implemented 'flexicurity' — easy hiring and firing, low corporate taxes, and business-friendly regulation. Denmark's corporate tax rate of 22% is lower than what the U.S. had before 2017.

So the actual lesson from Scandinavia is: free markets create wealth. You can then afford a generous safety net. But if government grows too large, it undermines the economic engine. The countries recognized this and reformed. They're successful because they course-corrected toward markets, not because big government works.

The countries progressives should be pointing to aren't Scandinavia — they're countries that actually tried big government and failed: Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Greece.