Poor and happy, or just poor?

In a relatively recent article in the New York Times (subscribers only, but subscribtion is free) a few rather little-known facts are listed about Norway and other socialized European countries. An example:

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

Also:

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi. In short, while Scandinavians are constantly told how much better they have it than Americans, [...] statistics suggest otherwise.

And..:

While the private-consumption figure for the United States was $32,900 per person, the countries of Western Europe (again excepting Luxembourg, at $29,450) ranged between $13,850 and $23,500, with Norway at $18,350.

The numbers give a clear message: Europeans would be the poor ones if Europe and America were one country.

But maybe this isn't so bad. We "all" know that Norwegians, for example, take very good care of their money. They own big sums in the bank, owe next to no money, take lunch-packs to work and do with very little consumption (or?). Some say that Norwegians are very satisfied with this and have no use for a more materialistic way of life, like for example the hyper-consuming average American. (Of course seeing a Norwegian coming to Denmark gives another picture. The Norwegian usually drinks himself silly in his Denmark-visits because the beer-prices are about half of what the Norwegians are used too at home. But lets keep the reality to the side this time.)

Yes, true, many a person can do with little and feel good about. Aren't other things important, like "free" this and that, a big generous State and a nice mountain-view? Sure. The African does with desert-sands, filthy clothes and surely, lunch-packs to work, and despite all this he will still go out at night and dance and sing and rejoice life with his family and friends after a day of work. But is this something to brag about? Can it be said that the Norwegian is tight-held on his money by choice rather than by need?

How is the story about the people of the old Soviet Union again? During the Soviet-era everyone got their food-stamps, "free" housing and a job. People could save their money and keep it safe under their pillows. When the Soviet Union collapsed, everyone had a nice stack of money under their pillows, but unfortuanelly at that time, it was worthless.

Some believe in the Norwegian policy of living poorly, have a big, fat bank-account and aim on living it out "later". The Norwegian State has billions in oil-money saved up, runs an unsustainable welfare-policy and plans on using up the billions on sustaining that system when the oil runs out. To this author this sounds like holding ones breath as long as possible and wait until the air starts to smell like roses, and then breathe. It leads to sufferings, is no guarentee for anything better coming along later and will most likely lead to more (brain) damage than pleasure.