Given the obvious bias displayed in the sweeping conclusions drawn in that post, I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in the author. There are so many possibl

Given the obvious bias displayed in the sweeping conclusions drawn in that post, I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in the author. There are so many possible biases in that comparison. For example, it's pretty well accepted that it's better to be high-income in the US than in Sweden, so if you for some reason have a population that is in the upper income levels in the US (due to being white and long-resident, for example) it's not surprising that they would have higher income than in Sweden. As Sweden is a much more redistributive society than the US, the upper income levels in the US are, as a matter of speaking, subsidized by the lower-income levels. And there are a lot more lower income levels in the US than in Sweden. The conclusion that "The U.S would be even richer and have much less poverty if it was made up entirely of Swedes" is ridiculous. It's equivalent to saying "the US would be even richer if it was made up entirely of the people that make a lot of money", which completely ignores the fact that the US economy depends on low-wage earners to a completely different degree than Sweden does.