`  == General ``Neutrality`` Comments == *I believe the overt problem with this article in terms of a public/mass education type read is that as currently written, a reader comes away with a very positive outlook on the Nordic Model not just as an economic organizing philosophy, but as a societal force.    **Once can argue that it is in FACT a POSITIVE ``economic organizing philosophy`` though that demands a subjective opinion cast onto the reader, rather than the statistical facts, counterpoints, and contrasts.    **On can also argue that NEGATIVE facts have been obscured in the article, and that the ``philosophy/system`` is in fact not well portrayed both as an 'on the ground economic reality' (I think we can agree that the Nordic model has not produced economic utopia in Scandinavia), or as a unique approach to state-sponsored economic management, a child of historical forces as much as fiat and cultural experience.    *The POINT is that this issue is very politicized, especially in the United States, where active ideological disagreements lead to common and frequent references to the Nordic Model as being an ideal to be followed, while those who disagree (FULL disclosure: I am American, and prefer the Swiss economic model above all), do so on widely divergent planes with all manner of critique.    *What I am proposing: The article intentional or not gives one the impression that the Nordic Model is the ``solution`` to the ``problem`` that is Economics.  This isn't simply bias, it's completely an original and novel conclusion that befits a thesis or a book, not an information encyclopedia entry which presumes little to know advance knowledge, and hopefully presents the reader the opportunity to form a brief opinion pending further learning - I believe that is the main purpose of Wikipedia article entries; I may be wrong, that's how I use it.    *Whether because of lack of reference, statistics, or even better coverage of the LONG academic study and (American) pop-culture obsession with this issue (which is rife with misinformation of all manner), I believe the article needs serious ``attention from an expert`` to specifically delineate how and why the Nordic Model exists (it's close with this), the consequences of the model for the societies it is used it (weak on this), the costs and benefits (article mentions one type of tax (income?) and even then very vaguely with a number, though the income tax system is graduated I believe), costs/problems aren't really mentioned.  *I actually do NOT believe the article requires a ``critique`` section - Economic models, national or otherwise, should speak for themselves, and importantly, should note where conclusions are being extrapolated.  (e.g. Does the Nordic Model produce low crime?  This is a causation assumption (it has been studied, I don't know the current thinking), but this type of argument is tempting when one writes about economic structures.  We must be cautious.`