Per Wikipedia, about 25 to 30% of the US population is fundamentalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelica ... te_note-19

Personally, I think we can learn from other countries. Let's adopt Sweden's corporate tax rate.

In your Wikipedia link it also says "about a third" are evangelical. I would also include many conservative Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews and fundamental Muslims in the description of fundmentalist. Its not so much the religion as the mindset that fundamental (such as literal acceptance of scriptures?) belief in the religion's creates a different way of analyzing the world and reacting to information.

Re Sweden

Swedens corporate tax rate may be interesting, But can one simply takes parts of a system and create a working whole? Could Swedens corprate tax rate work without the other features of its system? Both high (by US standards personal taxation but very high (again by US standards) socail benefits.... And yet low, by US standards expenditure on Health Care ...

Without its tax structure, benefits structure and fiscal balance Sweden would not have fared so well after the crash of 08 for instance. When the crash hit and people were unemployed, they immediatly began to receive lavish (by US terms) unemployment benefits. The Swedish economy had only a light recession and recovered more quickly than almost anywhere. And unemployment is quite low. (Dispelling the myth that large benefits creates a significant number of leaches...)
Certainly that had more to do with Swedens recent economic performance than low corporate rates...

Anyway, point is that I think picking individual features might be dangerous without considering the whole picture. The one thing Sweden really proves is that you can balance your budget and still have a lavish social program. If you want one and are willing to pay the cost. At the same time, as the esponse to the crash shows, there are economic benefits to the lavish social spending - even economically.

What do Greece, Spain and Portugal teach us? How about Hong Kong?

Ray Jay wrote:What do Greece, Spain and Portugal teach us?

I don't know much about Portugal, but for Greece:

"beware of an entrenched political class, and don't treat tax evasion and tax avoidance as a national sport"

and Spain:

"don't let devolved local regions spend like billy-oh, and don't let property bubbles go out of control while letting banks finagle out of proper regulation"

All three probably teach us not to be largely agrarian societies which were fascist dictatorships into the 1970s.

Lessons I think we should all take to heart, yes?

My point is that you have to pick and choose among different models. Sweden has a balance budget per Ricky. I would like for the US to get there. They prove that you can have a low corporate tax rate and a balanced budget. Greece proves that you have to be careful about defict spending. I agree with you on entrenched political class and tax evasion, both of which are not uncommon here in the US. Hong Kong teaches us that you can have a vibrant economy without having a large social safety net.

Ricky's point is that the US should be open to other experience. I agree. However, that doesn't mean that we should blindly accept other models in their entirety. I think that's equally simplistic.

Seriously, it's not social spending that cripples countries, it's failing to pay for it. It often tends to pay for itself in some ways, so it's not necessarily the snowball.

I was watching BBC coverage of the election today. This included interviews with local spokespeople in Florida. For some reason all of them were pro-Republican, but that's not my point. One of them (I think he was head of the local Chamber of Commerce, but I didn't see his name) said, with a straight face and without being challenged, that the economic problems were caused by high government spending and social programmes.

That is just not true. It was caused by banks being unable to cover the debts they owed each other, to the point that they couldn't lend into the normal economy.

I can see that deficits made it harder to deal with that problem, and also made any 'stimulus' more problematic. I can also see that deficits and high debt are an issue for the future. But they did not cause the recession.

That's the problem with 'learning lessons' - sometimes you only 'learn' the ones you want to - the ones you already had figured out.

Ray Jay wrote:My point is that you have to pick and choose among different models. Sweden has a balance budget per Ricky. I would like for the US to get there. They prove that you can have a low corporate tax rate and a balanced budget.

Mainly through high personal taxation and sales taxation. It's not been achieved by parsimonious spending.

Greece proves that you have to be careful about defict spending. I agree with you on entrenched political class and tax evasion, both of which are not uncommon here in the US.

Indeed, but the main problems Greece had really were that they were not just deficit spending, they were lying to themselves and everyone else about how bad things were. Partly because of the political system. In the US, however bad the 2-party system is, you do have scrutiny of the deficit and budget.

Hong Kong teaches us that you can have a vibrant economy without having a large social safety net.

And let's not worry about the dearth of democracy (even before the Chinese take-over), or what that lack of social safety net combined with an askance view of human rights brings.

There is much muck behind the bright lights of Kowloon.

Ricky's point is that the US should be open to other experience. I agree. However, that doesn't mean that we should blindly accept other models in their entirety. I think that's equally simplistic.

True. You have to take a middle path, and see why some things work within the context that they do.

Yes, context matters. That includes culture and size and history and Constitution and everything else.

Danivon:

Indeed, but the main problems Greece had really were that they were not just deficit spending, they were lying to themselves and everyone else about how bad things were. Partly because of the political system. In the US, however bad the 2-party system is, you do have scrutiny of the deficit and budget.

I think that's what the U.S. is doing. We are lying to ourselves. Both Presidential candidates are lying to us that they have a solution to the deficit. You yourself have said that the 2 parties have relatively narrow differences, although they are very shrill about those differences. Today we will spend another $3 billion more than we take in. Whereas Greece has Germany to bail them out, no one is big enough to bail the US out.

How do you deal with an over whelming deficit? Is it possible to wrestle to the ground and still maintain social programs? Both Canada and Sweden dealt with that issue in the 90's. Now, happiuly it ocurred in an expanding economy but neither nation severely cut social spending the way the American right believes has to happen in the US.
One thing going for the US is that for most everyone who isn't a politican in the US, the American deficit doesn't really matter. If it did, people would stop buying US bonds....They haven't. If it id the US dollar would slide in value. Except against a couple of currencies, it hasn't.
Fact is that the economic situation isn't nearly as bad as made out by those who require a disaster for their political agenda.
I agree with Ray that the US is lying to itself. Mostly to score points within the constant electoral process, but also because conservative religionists are willing to accept exceptionalism, and other loosely supported claims. What looking beyond the borders should get is a new perspective. But thats where the "cultural mindset" of fundamentalists coms in... When one looks at Sweden one sees a prosperous nation, made so in large part because of rich social programs. But a large portion of the US population, simply dismisses this reality with "Yeah but we don't want to be socialists".
The more reasoned resaponse is "Why can they afford all that, and we can't?"
Thats not a discussion you see on Fox News, or even NBC ...
The important politcal change in the world isn't in the US right now. (Especially since there is no change happening in the US ....only a continuing impasse no matter what happens with the election right now.
The change coming is in China where the expanding class and the dollar millionares are starting to demand poltical and social change.
we're not that far from a potential political sea change in China.....and that will set off a tsunami of change within global politics and trade.Compared to those events the current inability of Americans to come to grips with reality will matter little.

No, I mean lying about the actual size of the deficit. You know what it is in the USA - to the point you can say what the daily rate is. Greece conspired with Goldman Sachs to hide a large amount of borrowing, so any numbers provided would have been very wrong.

Yeah, investors see Obama as a huge win! Here comes the recovery!

Stocks eased off their lows but remained deeply in the red in a post-election selloff Wednesday, triggered by worries over the looming "fiscal cliff" and as fears over Europe's economy reemerged.

The Dow tumbled below 13,000, while the S&P 500 broke 1,400, both for the first time since early September.

Of course, the President has been campaigning on a plan to avoid the fiscal cliff. He's had his best man working on it.

Geithner?

Lew?

Axelrod?

Bill Clinton?

Nate Silver?

Paul Krugman?

Not even close.

Isn't Nate Silver just a journalist who does statistics? Why was he attacked so much and why would you call him Obama's man? The comparison to Rove and Silver on these boards I found strange, because one guy has got to be the biggest political hack ever, while the other is not a political hack at all, or do I not know his history? I admit I never heard of him until a couple of weeks ago.

I mean, he was right, isn't it possible, or even probable he was calling it like he saw it?

geojanes wrote:Isn't Nate Silver just a journalist who does statistics? Why was he attacked so much and why would you call him Obama's man? The comparison to Rove and Silver on these boards I found strange, because one guy has got to be the biggest political hack ever, while the other is not a political hack at all, or do I not know his history? I admit I never heard of him until a couple of weeks ago.

I mean, he was right, isn't it possible, or even probable he was calling it like he saw it?

Yes.

DF - do you think that Boehner's rather stubborn statement helped at all? The problem is that the market don't think your divided government can work through the issue quickly enough.

What you are doing - playing the blame game - is not helping. It's just part of a culture of partisanship that causes this entrenched behaviour on Capitol Hill.

Obama has said he will meet with the leadership at Capitol Hill. It's a start. I hope that all concerned can start to move from their trenches toward compromise.

danivon wrote:DF - do you think that Boehner's rather stubborn statement helped at all?

I think it had no impact, just as the President ignoring the issue has not had any impact.

The problem is that the market don't think your divided government can work through the issue quickly enough.

We have a unique system here. We have fixed terms, which means that a President is President no matter how little leadership he/she exhibits. The President should have a proposal on the table. Well, actually, he should have been campaigning on it. However, the Axelrod specialty is to run on nothing and that's what Obama did.

And, it's more than the fiscal cliff. Unlike the multitudes of zombies who voted for Obama, investors know his plans are bad for them and for the economy.

What you are doing - playing the blame game - is not helping. It's just part of a culture of partisanship that causes this entrenched behaviour on Capitol Hill.

Mmm, yeah, but no. The "behavior" on Capitol Hill is at least half Harry Reid. He's the Congressional reason there's been no budget for three years. And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, he's trying to make a difference.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills.

Speaking in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which boosted Senate Democrats’ numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he won’t end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often.

That will close the gap!

Obama has said he will meet with the leadership at Capitol Hill. It's a start. I hope that all concerned can start to move from their trenches toward compromise.

He should have been doing this for the last four years.

Watch what happens. We're going to see the "pragmatic" Obama appear. He's already calling for a "balanced solution." What does that mean?

It means Republicans should violate their principles and he should get a victory lap. He wants tax increases.