The Specter of Socialism’s Slow Collapse.

[Sam Stone]

So says The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html), writing on how the Socialist and left wing governments in Europe are being trounced by Conservatives.

There is now a right-leaning government in Germany, France and Italy. Portugal's Socialists lost their absolute majority. In Britain and Spain, the last two major countries with left-leaning governments, the left is getting hammered and will most likely lose in the next election.

Why do you think Socialism is failing in Europe? And how does this affect the Obama Administration's foreign policy? It will be a strange turn of events if America moves to the left of Europe. It's already moving to the left of Canada. This could have profound implications for the political dynamics of the world and the relationships between countries.

[Dick Dastardly]

It's just swings and roundabouts in European politics. The socialist parties now out of government will do a bit of rebranding and win future elections when people get sick of the current governments. The British Labour government was completely unelectable in the eighties but rebranded in the nineties and won a majority so big that people questioned whether the conservatives would ever form a government again.You had righties in power in say France and Germany, D' Estaing and Kohl and they got voted out and replaced by the left, who are now being replaced by the right. In time they'll get the boot and the NYT will write a thumb-sucker about how the new left is going to remodel Europe etc. The article says that the main objective of European right parties is to cut taxes. Well, we all know how well that worked out for America. I therefore confidently predict a future return for the lefties.

Every electable European conservative or right-leaning party would fit happily into the Democratic party if they were American, and in time even the GOP will resemble a European-style conservative party. The article points out that European righties have only become electable by embracing large chunks of the left's agenda like socialised healthcare, the welfare state, global warming etc. And unlike their American counterparts they hold sane views on financial regulation too. Eventually the GOP will have to do all this too, in a few decades they'll be indistinguishable from a European right party.

[Captain Amazing]

I don't see America moving to the left of Europe (or Canada). There's a right leaning government in Germany, France, and Italy, and Britain and Spain might elect right wing parties soon (and Canada has what's looking like the permanent Conservative minority government), but none of these parties are reactionary parties. You're not going to see homosexuality get criminalized, you're not going to see the universal health care systems in the above countries get privatized. The political spectrum in most of these countries is to the left of the United States, so even if conservative parties get in, they're still willing to accept political ideas that aren't acceptable here.

And I don't think it'll have a big effect on foreign relations. Look at France, for example. Mitterand, who was a socialist, got along much better with US Republican presidents Reagan and Bush than the right wing Chirac got along with Republican George W. Bush. And in Britain, Tony Blair and George W. Bush got along very well.

[AK84]

Democracy has cycles. After being in power for say 12 or so years, parties loes their appeal. The electorate feels that they have been in power too long and gives them the boot. In the mid ninties in Europe it was the conservatives who were on the recieving end of the stick, now the tables have turned.

[Cisco]

It's funny when people think, "whew! My party is finally in. Smooth sailin' from here on out." And I include those who seem to think it's a given that the Democrats will hold all of their congressional seats and Obama will be re-elected in 2012.

[Quartz]

Don't forget that the mainstream 'conservative' parties in Europe are more, in American terms, Democrat than Republican.

[SentientMeat]

The question could just as easily be asked, why has Conservatism already failed so abysmally that it is merely the opposition in almost every European state? Socialist (ie. socially focused) parties have been in power for three consecutive terms in some cases. The real question will be, will the coming Conservative turn last anywhere near as long? In the UK at least, the Consevatives will have to show that they will not fuck up the public sevices which have received greater investment under Labour if they are to win a second term. If anything, that suggests that social focus is now the 'job description' of government, and Conservatives must show some socialist colours if they are to be the successful applicants.

And this ...It will be a strange turn of events if America moves to the left of Europe. It's already moving to the left of Canada.... simply beggars belief. Obama is way, way to the right of European Conservatives who, if they ever hypothetically gained power in America, would immediately enact legislation which US Conservatives would find utterly horrifying: large tax rises, capital punishment, gun control, single-payer govenment healthcare, vastly scaled-down military spending, environmental programmes, intellectual property, public transport, election spending - almost every aspect of US law and public life would undergo an enormous leftwards shift to bring it into line with the current European right. You honestly think that US Conservatives will soon move to Canada because it will be more conservative than the US?

[Sam Stone]

You can't do direct 'conservative/liberal' comparisons between countries, because each country's politics are different. For example, Canada has public health care, which is certainly more left-wing than America's health care system. On the other hand, Canada has been shrinking the size of government for years, and the U.S. is about to surpass Canada both in overall tax burden and the overall size of government compared to GDP.

In addition, the U.S. is about to put more regulations on businesses than exist in Canada, and business taxes will be much higher - Canada is lowering its business tax each year until 2012, when it will be 15%. In the U.S. it will be 40-45%. Canada's tax system will also be less progressive.

On the other hand, we have more gun control and some restrictions on 'hate speech' and the like which wouldn't be tolerated in the U.S.

The same is true of Europe. They are mostly to the left of the U.S. socially, and will remain so. Economically, it's entirely possible that Europe will have a lower-tax, more business friendly environment than the U.S. within the next decade.

But ultimately, I pretty much agree with Dick Dastardly. This is just the pendulum swinging in the other direction. The governments that presided over the collapse are being punished. Eventually, they'll come back. As will the right in the U.S. That's why I framed the question more along the lines of how this changes the near future rather than what this means for Europe 30 years from now.

[SenorBeef]

And how does this affect the Obama Administration's foreign policy? It will be a strange turn of events if America moves to the left of Europe. It's already moving to the left of Canada.

Is it meaningful to conclude that a measure of government spending as a fraction of GDP or tax rates will determine which government is further left? It seems that the Canadian government(s) are generally still more leftist philosophically than the US government(s) in terms of the sort of laws they focus on. That they can be both more leftist and have lower government spending and taxation can be a combination of two factors. A) There is not actually a meaningful "left vs right" divide on the spending/size of government issue because the right is not any less willing to spend and expand the government than the left and B) perhaps Canada's government is structurally superior in some way that accounts for this.

It's not really meaningful to say that the US is left of Canada because it spends a greater portion of its GDP through the government. Are corporate welfare, arigicultural subsidies, a huge military, etc. leftist policies? The right in this country is doing a fine job of spending us to death when it gets the chance. It appears that Canada is more fiscally conservative even while being more philosophically leftist - which is, quite frankly, probably superior to what we're doing on all counts.

And you have yourself commented on the structure of the US government and how it is set up so that handouts and quid pro quo agreements are the rule. It means that every controversial bill that gets passed essentially has to bribe everyone who'd oppose it sufficiently to reduce their opposition. Which results in more pet projects, more government spending, more riders, more caveats, etc. An inefficient right-leaning government could outspend a structurally efficient leftist government this way.

In no way is this intended to be construed as a defense of the US government. It seems like we're getting screwed from all ends - Canada has shown greater fiscal responsibility than we had, and hence, enjoyed the good aspects of conservatism, but is philosophically leftist and hasn't had to suffer the downsides of neocon/theocrat type "conservatism". Bravo. You are a counter-example to the clusterfuck we've created in the US.

[wmfellows]

Economically, it's entirely possible that Europe will have a lower-tax, more business friendly environment than the U.S. within the next decade.

That seems fairly unlikely. I am uncomfortable with the simple More State / Less State basis of comparison on Right versus Left relative to Europe.

A fundamental difference between the North Americans and Europe is the Statist tradition in the right, that well predates socialism, etc. I rather think this wrong foots most North Americans thinking about European politics. Statist intervention in the economy (and favouritism to "national champions" or rather big influential firms) is not a bit of "left" integrated into the "right" in Europe, in particular continental Europe, it is a fundamental cornerstone of the illiberal wing of the Right in Europe.

Seeing this as "Left" entirely misunderstands the Right and the rather old roots of Statism. It seems to me that Stone keeps looking at these things through his North American "libertarian" prism.

That gets me to Senorbeef, while certainly in American terms, state intervention in the economy is thought of as Left, I think highlighting differences (such as state intervention to support favoured enterprises from a State Interest rather than Popular Welfare point of view, which is not Left at all in my opinion) is important.

I also would object to the mislabelling - abusive in my opinion - of Social Democratic movements as Socialists. France has genuine socialists, but Labour? (well they're around) Soc. Democrats are not the same breed as the actual socialists, and it is an annoying American habit to be unable to distinquish the two.

[gonzomax]

You can't do direct 'conservative/liberal' comparisons between countries, because each country's politics are different. For example, Canada has public health care, which is certainly more left-wing than America's health care system. On the other hand, Canada has been shrinking the size of government for years, and the U.S. is about to surpass Canada both in overall tax burden and the overall size of government compared to GDP.

In addition, the U.S. is about to put more regulations on businesses than exist in Canada, and business taxes will be much higher - Canada is lowering its business tax each year until 2012, when it will be 15%. In the U.S. it will be 40-45%. Canada's tax system will also be less progressive.

On the other hand, we have more gun control and some restrictions on 'hate speech' and the like which wouldn't be tolerated in the U.S.

The same is true of Europe. They are mostly to the left of the U.S. socially, and will remain so. Economically, it's entirely possible that Europe will have a lower-tax, more business friendly environment than the U.S. within the next decade.

But ultimately, I pretty much agree with Dick Dastardly. This is just the pendulum swinging in the other direction. The governments that presided over the collapse are being punished. Eventually, they'll come back. As will the right in the U.S. That's why I framed the question more along the lines of how this changes the near future rather than what this means for Europe 30 years from now.

You declare universal health care as left wing. That is interesting. It says the left wing cares about the lives of the citizens. It says that the well being of the people is a left wing concern. Conversely it says the right wing does not care about the well being of the masses. It says the right wing does not give a crap about those who are not well established. That is some selling point for recruiting. Come to the right. We will strip all programs that help the poor .We will fight for your right to allow people to go bankrupt and get into foreclosure when they are ill.
Your definition of the right in Europe is convenient for you, but it is not equivalent to the American righties.

[BrainGlutton]

Democracy has cycles. After being in power for say 12 or so years, parties loes their appeal.

But, the Socialist Party in Spain (which Sam says is about to get the boot -- I haven't researched that) has only been in power since 2004. And Angela Merkel (Christian Democrat, center-right) has been chancellor of Germany since 2000 and just got re-elected.

[wmfellows]

You declare universal health care as left wing. That is interesting. It says the left wing cares about the lives of the citizens. It says that the well being of the people is a left wing concern.

It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

What it says is that from a "right wing" (or at least American) point of view, there is a belief that government would do a poor job of providing said health care. While doubtless there are some callous people who do not care a whit for their fellow citizens, it does not follow that this is the reason for opposition. I think rather more generally it is a skepticism, certainly not without real foundation, that government can properly provide health care for the population, and a belief the end result would be worse.

You can certainly argue that this is an incorrect point of view (and I grant there is an argument there), but the straw man you're setting up is fundamentally dishonest and typical left wing smearing.

[gonzomax]

No straw man. . Read post 8. He says Canadian Health Care is certainly more left than our system. Would that be describing UHC as lefty or righty?

[wmfellows]

No straw man. . Read post 8. He says Canadian Health Care is certainly more left than our system. Would that be describing UHC as lefty or righty?

I know that your own reading skills would benefit from polishing, however let me point out that your reply is a complete non sequitor. My note was taking to you to task for your ridiculous proposition regarding "caring" - not the discussable Left / Rightness of government sponsored health care. So, please do try to read more carefully.

[glee]

So says The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/europe/29socialism.html), writing on how the Socialist and left wing governments in Europe are being trounced by Conservatives.

There is now a right-leaning government in Germany, France and Italy. Portugal's Socialists lost their absolute majority. In Britain and Spain, the last two major countries with left-leaning governments, the left is getting hammered and will most likely lose in the next election.

Why do you think Socialism is failing in Europe? And how does this affect the Obama Administration's foreign policy? It will be a strange turn of events if America moves to the left of Europe. It's already moving to the left of Canada. This could have profound implications for the political dynamics of the world and the relationships between countries.

I find this badly researched.

1. There are 10 official European political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party), which include:

- European Socialists
- Party of the European Left (which includes Communists)
- European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party
- European Green Party

There is no sign of any of these socialist parties failing.

2. Yes, there are swings from Socialists to Conservatives and back again. This is usual, since almost every Government runs out of ideas / gets corrupt / gets lazy after a while.
In the UK, Margaret Thatcher's Conservativism was very successful for a while - then it all went wrong and Blair took over for just as long.

3. 'It will be a strange turn of events if America moves to the left of Europe.'

This statement is particularly silly. :smack::rolleyes::confused:

Consider these policies of a major UK party and quotes from its Leader (favourite to form the next Government):

- for Universal Health Care ... "The National Health Service is one of the 20th Century's greatest achievements"

- for near-complete Gun Control ... "Gun crime is out of control" N.B. handguns are not allowed for self defence (or anything else) and even the beat police are not armed

- against Capital Punishment ... "I just don’t honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more"

Of course these are the views of David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party.

There are 3 major political parties in the UK.
By US standards they rank as:

Labour = 'Communist'
Liberal Democrat = 'Socialist'
Conservative = 'Left Wing'

[ElvisL1ves]

Sam, using your own standards, the evidence for the US Republicans' having a much faster and more complete collapse is far stronger. But you know that, don't you?

(Neither is true, of course)

[BrainGlutton]

Also, to keep this all in its proper perspective: There is no "Socialism's Slow Collapse" in Europe because there is no "socialism" in Europe, not even in countries where the currently ruling party has "socialist" in its name. (Social democracy is not the same thing.)

[Taber]

You can't do direct 'conservative/liberal' comparisons between countries, because each country's politics are different. For example, Canada has public health care, which is certainly more left-wing than America's health care system. On the other hand, Canada has been shrinking the size of government for years, and the U.S. is about to surpass Canada both in overall tax burden and the overall size of government compared to GDP.

How much of U.S. size of government made up of military spending? It would seem silly to say the U.S. is more lefty than Canada because it spends more on the military.

[Dick Dastardly]

1. In addition, the U.S. is about to put more regulations on businesses than exist in Canada, and business taxes will be much higher - Canada is lowering its business tax each year until 2012, when it will be 15%. In the U.S. it will be 40-45%.


2. Economically, it's entirely possible that Europe will have a lower-tax, more business friendly environment than the U.S. within the next decade.

1. Business taxes in America are actually the lowest of any major economy. Officially they're high but in practice well over half of US businesses pay no income taxes at all as the tax code is one big loophole. The actual rate is in single digits so Canada actually has a far higher business tax rate. This is one of the nonsense talking points the GOP and their media constantly repeat in their neverending quest to reduce business/income/capital gains taxes.

2. European governments have bigger debts as a proportion of GDP than the US and all political factions in Europe agree that government is something that has to be paid for, you're not going to get a bunch of idiots elected who claim that deficits don't matter, something that we know isn't impossible in America. And depending on how you define it, business-friendly isn't always a good thing either. The monetary and financial regulatory policies in the US over the first eight years of the decade were business-friendly.

[wmfellows]

I find this badly researched. ....
There are 3 major political parties in the UK.
By US standards they rank as:

Labour = 'Communist'
Liberal Democrat = 'Socialist'
Conservative = 'Left Wing'

Leaving aside the badly researched (I am not necessarily in disagreement as such), I don't think that the above is accurate, even on own (US) terms. Taking a few policy items out of context, maybe, but as a package I think you would find Labour and Lib Dems in one package (in the Democrats category, although yes both would be labelled socialist by real extremists) and the Conservative Party as something like the "left" wing of the US Republican party.

[elucidator]

We're doomed? Again? Rats, sackcloth and ahses just doesn't go well with my complexion, I'm an "Autumn"....

[sqweels]

It says absolutely nothing of the sort.

What it says is that from a "right wing" (or at least American) point of view, there is a belief that government would do a poor job of providing said health care. While doubtless there are some callous people who do not care a whit for their fellow citizens, it does not follow that this is the reason for opposition. I think rather more generally it is a skepticism, certainly not without real foundation, that government can properly provide health care for the population, and a belief the end result would be worse.
In other word, "nuh-uh".

How well does an empty parking lot provide health care to people? Only the government can "provide" free money that low-income people can use to pay for health care (and let's make sure to distinguish between insurance and hospitals). Private businesses only sell insurance or sell medical services to people who can afford it.

[SentientMeat]

Leaving aside the badly researched (I am not necessarily in disagreement as such), I don't think that the above is accurate, even on own (US) terms. Taking a few policy items out of context, maybe, but as a package I think you would find Labour and Lib Dems in one package (in the Democrats category, although yes both would be labelled socialist by real extremists) and the Conservative Party as something like the "left" wing of the US Republican party.Well, let's try it then shall we? I struggle to think of policies in which the UK Conservatives sit to the right of Obama, let alone McCain. In fact, all three UK parties largely occupy the same 'middle' ground - UK ground, that is. This ground is far, far left of the US 'middle' ground, such that all 3 UK parties pretty much occupy the left of the Democratic party, IMO.

If Cameron got into the White House, you guys would be begging Dennis Kucinich to save you from the limey Marxist.

[wmfellows]

In other word, "nuh-uh".

No, not in other words. I merely pointed out the gross distortion of the actual "anti" view on gov't health care, which takes the view that government provision is a worse end choice for the general population. This may well be wrong - it is not my view (that is the anti view), but I am not so childish as to have to render the anti view in strawmen terms.

How well does an empty parking lot provide health care to people?

Parking lots do not provide health care period, empty or not, I'm afraid this is just incoherent.

I'm not interested in arguing against government intervention in health care, so you can save that for someone invested in that view.

[TorpedoTed]

And Angela Merkel (Christian Democrat, center-right) has been chancellor of Germany since 2000 and just got re-elected.

2005, actually. Also it's worth noting that although Merkel was re-elected (and still enjoys good personal popularity on the whole) the CDU in fact lost a fair amount of support this election--the SPD simply lost far, far more (it was the three smaller parties, the Greens, the Left, and above all the FDP that truly gained the most ground this time around). Secondly, the CDU under Merkel has actually adopted number of traditionally social-democratic or at least broadly more "leftist" policies--environmentalism being a particularly noticeable one (well, at least before the economy went downhill...)--a factor which (among many other things) no doubt contributed to the SPD's lack of direction and inability to assert themselves as of late, thus leading to their pitiful results in the recent election.

Also, to give you an idea of the completely different playing field in Europe as compared to the USA--Guido Westerwelle, chairman of the FDP, and thus almost certainly future vice chancellor under Merkel, is openly gay (something which quite clearly has not effected his popularity all that much even among more conservative voters). Can you imagine something even remotely similar occuring with the Republicans?

[gonzomax]

We have a Stone specter of a slow socialist collapse. How about an extremely fast capitalist collapse. We spent a couple trillion trying to save the world economies from damage that unregulated capitalism wreaked. We destroyed the financial security of many nations all at the same time. That certainly is a high recommendation for capitalism ,don't you think?

[[Undecided] Adrian]

TorpedoTed, exactly.
In Germany the new thing is the new left party Die Linke, formed by people who were disappointed by the reforms that the Social Democrats made (and the Ex-SED Eastern German rulers...) and are much further to the left. One of their billboards simply reads Tax Wealth (http://die-linke.de/typo3temp/GB/d673b5da3a.jpg).

As a result, the Social Democrats are weakened, but the whole political spectrum moved to the left. The new coalition have adopted many traditionally left positions (eg the aforementioned environmental stuff; UHC is supported by every party here since Weimar) and though they of course have promised tax breaks, noone thinks they are really feasible right now.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

TorpedoTed, exactly.
In Germany the new thing is the new left party Die Linke, formed by people who were disappointed by the reforms that the Social Democrats made (and the Ex-SED Eastern German rulers...) and are much further to the left. One of their billboards simply reads Tax Wealth (http://die-linke.de/typo3temp/GB/d673b5da3a.jpg).

One of the advantages of a parliamentary system is that party factions can split into new parties, but still collectively wield power if they can form a coalition. Although, I haven't heard anything about the "Left Party" and the old SPD being able to form a ruling coalition this time around. In this country a party that wins only 30% of the vote is completely irrelevant due to our system of winner-take-all.


One of their billboards simply reads Tax Wealth (http://die-linke.de/typo3temp/GB/d673b5da3a.jpg).

If only! In this country wealth has become inviolate, because it has so much power. In my county (Los Angeles) we actually voted a half-cent sales tax to fund transit improvements. It seems that property and income can no longer be taxed, so the poor and middle class end up having to vote to tax themselves to fund needed infrastructure. This tax passed by a two-thirds majority, and I was happy that it passed; all the same it is a regressive tax that impacts the poor far more than it does the rich.
[/quote]

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

btw [Undecided] Adrian's username seems to wreak havoc with quote delimiters!

[Raygun99]

Isn't the most overriding factor competence in government? In Canada, we (speaking in general, electorate terms) kicked out the Liberals due to corruption issues, and the leaders they've brought us since have not impressed us as guys we'd trust to run the whole shebang. At the same time, we haven't seen fit to trust Harper with all the keys yet, and while some of that is due to electoral math and roadblocks, it seems silly to say we've moved rightwards as a country when the Conservative party here can't get elected as a majority when that used to be commonplace.

Ideology is one thing, but eventually you want the garbage picked up.

[Baron Greenback]

Well, let's try it then shall we? I struggle to think of policies in which the UK Conservatives sit to the right of Obama, let alone McCain. In fact, all three UK parties largely occupy the same 'middle' ground - UK ground, that is. This ground is far, far left of the US 'middle' ground, such that all 3 UK parties pretty much occupy the left of the Democratic party, IMO.



What do you think of the current leaders of the Liberal Democrats who contributed to the Orange Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism)? Where would you place them?

[Lust4Life]

It seems pretty likely that the Conservative party will be voted in in the next General Election but you know what?

They're not about to get rid of Social medecine,not now nor at any time in the conceivable future.
So if the O.P. is trying to to use European political trends as a stick to beat Obama with then he's most definitely barking up the wrong tree.

[[Undecided] Adrian]

One of the advantages of a parliamentary system is that party factions can split into new parties, but still collectively wield power if they can form a coalition. Although, I haven't heard anything about the "Left Party" and the old SPD being able to form a ruling coalition this time around. In this country a party that wins only 30% of the vote is completely irrelevant due to our system of winner-take-all.

That's true, of course. In the federal parliament, the SPD has ruled out a coalition with Die Linke for now, however. In the state parliaments, that's not true even now, and the SPD actually gained there a little.And the ruling two parties have an actual (small) majority (so red-red-green is a minority still). Though as I said, they were moving to the left as a whole.

[Dick Dastardly]

What do you think of the current leaders of the Liberal Democrats who contributed to the Orange Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism)? Where would you place them?

The Lib Dems who are going all free market are just after expanding Lib Demsupporters, they're trying to peel socially liberal but free market voters away from the Tories. They're all things to all people, in the south they're compassionate conservatives, in the north they're to the left of Labour, they're all multicultural in London. They can get away with this all-things-to-all-people bs because they've got no chance of being elected and so the media don't bother calling them on it.


Of the two parties with a chance of being elected you're not going to find any major policy point that wouldn't fit happily in the democratic wing of the US Democratic party. Maybe there is one but I can't think of it.

[leander]

Socialists Are Victorious in Greece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125463553190862261.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

[elucidator]

Well, yeah, Greece, but they have no real longstanding tradition of democracy.

[Sam Stone]

It seems pretty likely that the Conservative party will be voted in in the next General Election but you know what?

They're not about to get rid of Social medecine,not now nor at any time in the conceivable future.
So if the O.P. is trying to to use European political trends as a stick to beat Obama with then he's most definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Please tell me where I tried to 'beat up' on the Obama administration. My question was really whether this apparent shift to the right would make Obama's foreign policy more difficult.

[Sam Stone]

I think you guys are underplaying the shift to the right.

Look a the last elections for the EU. AsThe Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/07/eu-elections-social-democrats) says:

Misery for social democrats as voters take a turn to the right

Europe's mainstream centre-left parties suffered humiliation last night when four days of voting in the EU's biggest-ever election concluded with disastrous results for social democrats.

Results from the national rounds of the European parliament election across the 27 member states also showed support for centre-right Christian democrats diminishing in places, but nonetheless notching up handsome victories in several key states.

In Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the centre right won the elections, with stunning defeats for the left in certain cases.

As for Germany, the SPD suffered its worst result in any election its ever participated in. The party that gained the most support was the right-wing Free Democrats, so the new government will move even more to the right than it was.

In Austria, the Social Democrats suffered the biggest loss in their history. In Spain, the socialists lost to the conservatives. Sarkozy clobbered the left in France, despite his personal popularity being quite low.

In Hungary, the right-wing opposition won over the socialists in a landslide.

The EU parliament will now have 110 more seats belonging to the center right than to the socialists.

And right now, for the upcoming election in the UK, the Conservatives are trending towards forming a majority government, with the Labour party taking a shellacking.

These seem like fairly significant results.

[John Mace]

I'm still not seeing a scenario where "America moves to the left of Europe". As Europe moves more to the right, especially in foreign policy, perhaps it will be easier to reach consensus between the US and our European allies. But still, any shift to the right is relative, as others have pointed out.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Adrian;11624123']That's true, of course. In the federal parliament, the SPD has ruled out a coalition with Die Linke for now, however. In the state parliaments, that's not true even now, and the SPD actually gained there a little.And the ruling two parties have an actual (small) majority (so red-red-green is a minority still). Though as I said, they were moving to the left as a whole.

Is there any possibility that the SDP will move toward a more centrist line, now that the Die Linke seems to be drawing off the more committed leftists? I can't imagine the SPD maintaining an active quasi-Marxist student organization (die Jungsozialisten) from which to gain new, committed party members the way they could in the 1960s and 70s, as it seems that those students would now be more drawn to the Die LInke.

Regarding any possible coalition between the two, as far as I can see there's not a lot of love lost on either side. I was just listening to a former SPD party chief on Stammtisch, who basically dismissed Die Linke as populist but not realistic.

[constanze]

Also, to keep this all in its proper perspective: There is no "Socialism's Slow Collapse" in Europe because there is no "socialism" in Europe, not even in countries where the currently ruling party has "socialist" in its name. (Social democracy is not the same thing.)

This. If a newspaper can't do enough research to get the basic distinctions right, then I don't need to read the article itself. Or is the newspaper simply a mouthpiece of the conservatives and thus uses the American instead of the normal defintion of socalism?

Also, in the case of Germany, many people didn't vote for the SPD Social Democrats, because they were disappointed with them not being left enough! Of the 11 % that they lost, a good chunk - beside the 2 mil. non-voters who stayed at home - went to the Left or Green party instead.

It's just that, similar to the US, the consies will vote for their party, no matter how much they screw up; while the liberals and social democrats will protest vote when they are disappointed with the party line and actions.

[constanze]

Isn't the most overriding factor competence in government? In Canada, we (speaking in general, electorate terms) kicked out the Liberals due to corruption issues, and the leaders they've brought us since have not impressed us as guys we'd trust to run the whole shebang. At the same time, we haven't seen fit to trust Harper with all the keys yet, and while some of that is due to electoral math and roadblocks, it seems silly to say we've moved rightwards as a country when the Conservative party here can't get elected as a majority when that used to be commonplace.

Ideology is one thing, but eventually you want the garbage picked up.

No, no, no. Not in America. You must not have watched any election battle or politics discussion about the US? The broad population expects that all good guys are Perfect Saints (personally, I think because of the strong puritan influence and lack of proper education - there are people surprised that the Heroes in the Old Testament do morally reprehensible things because the Bible is the Book of Moral Codes for all times to them).
Therefore, any politican who has a child out of wedlock, cheats on his wife or is gay must be kicked out of office. Not praying and being a christian makes you non-electable in the US.

[constanze]

I think you guys are underplaying the shift to the right.

Now, you are ignoring that European conservatives, no matter how right they are to us, are still center-Democrat on the US scale; and have adopted many parts from the social democrats and greens.

As for Germany, the SPD suffered its worst result in any election its ever participated in.

Yes, because the voters were unhappy with what the SPD did in the big coalition. Which the SPD only entered because they lost after voters were unhappy with the Agenda 2010, Hartz IV, and similar that power-hungry, principle-less, "comrade-of-the-bosses" Schröder enacted. And they had no real candidate against Angie. Hopefully, this loss will serve as wake-up call for the SPD to get their act together - for the first time in ages, I heard a party say that they lost after the count was over, instead of the usual "well we really won because" excuses they usually serve up.

The party that gained the most support was the right-wing Free Democrats, so the new government will move even more to the right than it was.

The Free Democrats are, for all the faults they have, are not anything right-wing. They are free-market liberals, similar to liberatarians, with a strong emphasis on social rights (but little chance of moving their bigger partner on these issues, as seen in the past), and demolishing employee rights.
But they certainly wouldn't loose gun rights , for example.

[constanze]

Is there any possibility that the SDP will move toward a more centrist line, now that the Die Linke seems to be drawing off the more committed leftists? I can't imagine the SPD maintaining an active quasi-Marxist student organization (die Jungsozialisten) from which to gain new, committed party members the way they could in the 1960s and 70s, as it seems that those students would now be more drawn to the Die LInke.

You mean, back from right of the center, through the center, back to slightly left of the center, where they belong? I certainly hope so, because we need a reasonable social democratic party, which sadly the SPD has failed to do for the last decades.

I don't see the Linke drawing of the lefties - we still have real funny parties like the MLPD - Marxistische-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands - around, after all. I think they these are protest voters unhappy with the SPD. The Linke is simply too unrealistic and crazy in their suggestions to attract large numbers reliably.

I don't think they need to attract youngsters through the Falken (falcons) as they used to, if they just manage to re-attract the average worker, the poor people who want to have their rights protected.

Regarding any possible coalition between the two, as far as I can see there's not a lot of love lost on either side. I was just listening to a former SPD party chief on Stammtisch, who basically dismissed Die Linke as populist but not realistic.

Well, the SPD is deadly afraid whenever the Consies call them "lefties" - similar to how normal people react to being called liberals in the US - because instead of embracing that label, they think the people perceive lefties as bad communists. That, plus that Oskar LaFontaine is a cowardly traitor, and cooperation is difficult.

And yes, all slogans by the Left I saw on their posters were ludicrously naive, unworkable or otherwise unrealistic and idiotic.

[RedFury]

The OP is Greek to me.

[Blalron]

The OP is Greek to me.

Socialists win (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8289674.stm) in Greece!

Looks like that collapse is happening slower than Sam Stone thought.

[Henrichek]

I have felt a trend as described in the OP. In my country the right wing has also taken power, bringing more privatizations, gutting of labor protection, evisceration of personal integrity etc.

It's very depressing :(.

[Sam Stone]

Socialists win (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8289674.stm) in Greece!

Looks like that collapse is happening slower than Sam Stone thought.

Yes, as everyone knows, as goes Greece, so goes Europe.

I'm still not seeing a scenario where "America moves to the left of Europe". As Europe moves more to the right, especially in foreign policy, perhaps it will be easier to reach consensus between the US and our European allies. But still, any shift to the right is relative, as others have pointed out.

As I said earlier, you can't compare Europe's right with the U.S. right, as they are different animals altogether. I granted that Europe is (and will remain) far to the left of the U.S. on many social issues, on health care, etc. But there are areas where Europe could easily move more towards the 'right' than the U.S. For example, taxes. The U.S. already has the highest business taxes of any major economy. The Obama administration wants to raise them even more, while the trend for most other countries is to lower them further. If the U.S. institutes Cap and Trade, it will put greenhouse gas policy to the left of much of Europe.

In terms of Progressivity of income taxes, the U.S. top tax rate is 35%. When the Bush tax cuts expire, and if Obama gets his way and removes the cap on social security deductions, the top tax rate will be over 50%. This would make the top tax bracket higher in the U.S. than in the UK, Germany, France, Norway, Spain, Sweden, The Ukraine, Switzerland, and most other countries in Europe.

Obama also wants to increase business regulations and institute card check and other labor rights, which could easily wind up putting the U.S. to the left of Europe on labor policy.

So let's just say that the U.S. could wind up to the left of Europe on 'some' things.

[BrainGlutton]

I have felt a trend as described in the OP. In my country the right wing has also taken power, bringing more privatizations, gutting of labor protection, evisceration of personal integrity etc.

It's very depressing :(.

Which country is that?

[Henrichek]

Which country is that?

Sweden.

[waterj2]

So let's just say that the U.S. could wind up to the left of Europe on 'some' things.Perhaps, but as I see it, Europe's already gone and done all these lefty policies, constructed "welfare states" and has been whittling back from there. The ground rules for "free market" policies are vastly different between the US where, say, access to healthcare is closely tied to employment, and Europe, where it isn't.

As for the implications for Obama's relations with Europe, it seems unfathomable that he's as ideologically different from Europe's leaders as Bush was, or really even within the same order of magnitude. Sarkozy may be no Mitterand, but we're still a long way from France making an issue about our high marginal tax rates or generous labor policies.

[squeegee]

The U.S. already has the highest business taxes of any major economy.Please address Dick Dastardly's comments re this in post #20.
In terms of Progressivity of income taxes, the U.S. top tax rate is 35%. When the Bush tax cuts expire, and if Obama gets his way and removes the cap on social security deductions, the top tax rate will be over 50%1. The US top tax rate from 1993-2000 was 39.5%. The top income tax bracket would revert to that rate if the Bush tax cuts expire. Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates.5B20.5D)

2. What the hell is this handwaving about SS deductions? I thought payroll taxes didn't count as income taxes since they get returned to the payroll taxed person eventually? I'd bet I could google up a post from you that says as much.

In any case, you're basically making up a scenario and trying to prove some point about marginal rates using the top tax rate. Marginal rates are not effective tax rates, and I'm sure you know that.

[Sam Stone]

Please address Dick Dastardly's comments re this in post #20.

Which doesn't change a thing, since the other countries also have tax breaks for their corporations. If you think the total effective tax in the U.S. will remain lower, that's great. In the meantime, all that activity that companies have to do to avoid paying those taxes makes them less internationally competitive as well.


1. The US top tax rate from 1993-2000 was 39.5%. The top income tax bracket would revert to that rate if the Bush tax cuts expire. Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates.5B20.5D)


Yes, and Obama also wants to remove the SS cap. That's an additional 6.2% added to the marginal rate above the cap. Which will make the marginal rates on the rich the highest they've been since 1982.

2. What the hell is this handwaving about SS deductions? I thought payroll taxes didn't count as income taxes since they get returned to the payroll taxed person eventually? I'd bet I could google up a post from you that says as much.

When you remove the cap on payments, but leave the cap on benefits, you turn the program into social welfare. Instead of everyone paying their own share into the system for their own benefits, you have the rich paying far more than the middle class, for the same amount of benefits.

In any case, you're basically making up a scenario and trying to prove some point about marginal rates using the top tax rate. Marginal rates are not effective tax rates, and I'm sure you know that.

No, they're not. But if you want to start trying to determine which deductions apply and where and to whom, it becomes very difficult to compare countries, since they all have their own set of tax breaks.

Perhaps the most effective way to compare countries is to look at the size of government as a percentage of GDP. Again, you'll find that the U.S. government is slowly poised to slowly pass a number of countries in this measure, including Canada.

[Rune]

The Social democratic movement is dead. All that the current party share with the previous movement is the name. When it was a strong movement there were institutions and organisations that catered to its members from cradle to grave. Literally. There were maternity doctors and funeral parlours. And a lot in between: shopping chains, scout movements, newspapers, housing, spa baths, football teams, etc. None of this is left. Even the labour movement (itself halting) has cut its ties to the party. Removed all the surrounding movements institutions, the current Social democrats have mostly been reduced to a party based on continuously increased welfare consummation. But it used to be much more than that.

A visionary Danish labour union leader (Thomas Nielsen - 1982) once described it as: “We have been victorious as hell”. Which sums up their current predicament quite well.

Also noteworthy is that “traditional workers” – “blue collar” I think you call them - on the whole doesn’t really vote Social Democrat anymore. And parties further to the left were never based on worker votes.

[Der Trihs]

Perhaps the most effective way to compare countries is to look at the size of government as a percentage of GDP. Again, you'll find that the U.S. government is slowly poised to slowly pass a number of countries in this measure, including Canada.But size of government has little to do with socialism or leftism. The Right loves big government; just for different reasons than the left.

[Ludovic]

Especially in Europe. I'd like to see some evidence that the center-right, much less the hard right, are seriously poised to diminish the size of government in Europe. All I see from this side of the pond is spend-and-spend Reaganomics and xenophobia.

[Dick Dastardly]

Which doesn't change a thing, since the other countries also have tax breaks for their corporations. If you think the total effective tax in the U.S. will remain lower, that's great. In the meantime, all that activity that companies have to do to avoid paying those taxes makes them less internationally competitive as well.




Yes, and Obama also wants to remove the SS cap. That's an additional 6.2% added to the marginal rate above the cap. Which will make the marginal rates on the rich the highest they've been since 1982.



When you remove the cap on payments, but leave the cap on benefits, you turn the program into social welfare. Instead of everyone paying their own share into the system for their own benefits, you have the rich paying far more than the middle class, for the same amount of benefits.



No, they're not. But if you want to start trying to determine which deductions apply and where and to whom, it becomes very difficult to compare countries, since they all have their own set of tax breaks.

Perhaps the most effective way to compare countries is to look at the size of government as a percentage of GDP. Again, you'll find that the U.S. government is slowly poised to slowly pass a number of countries in this measure, including Canada.



It does change a thing. The thing it changes is that the US does not have the highest business tax rates in the world. Yes, other countries have similar loopholes but nowhere near the size or extent that exists in the US. And you need to compare apples with apples. If you're adding on SS taxes to income taxes to claim income tax is higher than elsewhere in the world then you need to add on other countries' version of SS taxes. In the UK it's called National Insurance and top earners can pay up to 65% of their income in various taxes now. America will still have the lowest individual taxes (and massive loopholes in the tax code) of any major economy. Let's put it another way. No foreign business is going to be put off investing in the world's richest market because of America's high levels of taxation.

All this nonsense we constantly hear about cutting income/corporate/capital gains taxes and everything will be great is comprehensively disproved by the post-2000 performance of the US economy and government/national debt after the Bush tax cuts. Since Reagan things have got so far out of whack that America will both have to raise taxes and start to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the rest of the population before it can make any true economic recovery.

[squeegee]

Which doesn't change a thing, since the other countries also have tax breaks for their corporations.I'm with Dick Dastardly -- of course it changes something. Your assertion about corporate taxes is misleading and US corporations pay far less than the statutory rate. Which I'm sure you knew. Perhaps the most effective way to compare countries is to look at the size of government as a percentage of GDP. Again, you'll find that the U.S. government is slowly poised to slowly pass a number of countries in this measure, including Canada.Fine, let's look at that. here's a cite (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf)(PDF!) from the Congressional Budget Office. See table 2.1, "Taxes on Corporate Income in OECD Countries in 2002 as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product", and you'll see that the US was isn't even close to the top as a percentage of GDP, and at 1.8 percent of GDP was nearly half of Canada's rate of 3.4.

[gonzomax]

I still don't know what right wing source Sam get5s his stats from. They are always miles off the truth and favor the right wing. I wish he would be more judicious in where he gets his figures. they are embarrassingly wrong.

[Sam Stone]

Gonzo, feel free to be specific. For the record, my usual sources for such statistics are the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the IRS, the Congressional Research Service, the CBO, and the White House Budget Office.

I encourage you to check up on them any time you wish, but any criticisms of my 'inaccuracy' will be met by me with a demand for a cite. If you can't provide one, then you have no business commenting.

Squeegee: That is indeed a good cite, but it's also 7 years old. Much has changed since then. For example, in 2002 the OECD average corporate tax rate for all non-US countries was about 36%. This year, it's 30%. By 2012, it will be about 28%. The U.S. corporate tax rate has been flat throughout that time.

Besides, Obama wants to do away with the tax havens and loopholes that keep corporate taxes low, but he doesn't want to lower the corporate tax rate. I could actually get behind a program that eliminated subsidies, tax breaks, and other corporate loopholes, so long as such a program was revenue-neutral and resulted in equivalent cuts to the corporate tax rate. But Obama wants to just go after the tax breaks. That means he will be increasing the effective corporate tax rate, at a time when other countries are lowering theirs.

[gonzomax]

http://www.progressive.org/mp/collins082108.html Does it include this escaping of taxes?

[gonzomax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html Or perhaps this?

[squeegee]

I encourage you to check up on them any time you wish, but any criticisms of my 'inaccuracy' will be met by me with a demand for a cite. If you can't provide one, then you have no business commenting.Um, wouldn't this also extend to you, Sam? Your only cite in this thread has been to some chicken-little story in the Guardian. Why do you have any business commenting in this thread?

For example, in 2002 the OECD average corporate tax rate for all non-US countries was about 36%. This year, it's 30%. By 2012, it will be about 28%. The U.S. corporate tax rate has been flat throughout that time.Given what I just said above, I'm through googling shit to attest to your reliability. I don't usually do this, but you've made yourself a special case: Cite??. Give me some links that prove anything you said, thanks.

Besides, Obama wants to do away with the tax havens and loopholes that keep corporate taxes low, but he doesn't want to lower the corporate tax rate. I could actually get behind a program that eliminated subsidies, tax breaks, and other corporate loopholes, so long as such a program was revenue-neutral and resulted in equivalent cuts to the corporate tax rate. But Obama wants to just go after the tax breaks. That means he will be increasing the effective corporate tax rate, at a time when other countries are lowering theirs.Blah blah blah "Obama wants to do this or that". Sorry, please cite what Obama wants to do. I frankly am skeptical, but maybe that's all true. But that's all on you now -- cite to stories about what Obama wants to do, including cites from Obama and his administration, and not including cites from some hack saying what he thinks Obama might do. k? thx.

[amanset]

Sweden.

I still live in hope that the left wingers will get voted in next year. Historically the right always gets a chance every so often, nobody likes them and then the left gets voted back in. The right's coalition has had its ups and downs. They are doing OK now but a year ago they were in all sorts of trouble. I expect to hear a lo9t from the left reminding us as to why the right was unpopular in the run up to the election.

Oh and Norway just voted in a centre-left coalition.

[Algorithm]

Yes, as everyone knows, as goes Greece, so goes Europe.

In other words: That piece of evidence doesn't support my a priori conclusion that "Socialism is failing in Europe", therefore I'll ignore it.

[Rune]

In other words: That piece of evidence doesn't support my a priori conclusion that "Socialism is failing in Europe", therefore I'll ignore it.Well perhaps. But Sam forgot the perhaps most telling example. The June 2009 EU parliament election, where the conservative group once again won the majority and expanded their lead. And that this is happening in an environment of an economic downturn and rising unemployment, which really ought to have been a great benefit for left leaning parties.

But it is possible that there is no overall trend to it all, just a lot of individual cases that happen to point in the same general direction.

[Švejk]

1) To speak of 'socialism' in the context of North American politics and political actors is either to be disingenuous or to be ignorant.

2) Social Democracy in Europe is experiencing something of a crisis but in large part that is due, paradoxically, to its success. Much of the agenda of building up a welfare state, which is the big project that social democrats set out for after the Second World War, has been carried out. Together with conservatives/Christian Democrats, a welfare state was erected that is by now pretty firmly entrenched for the most part (although it is my view that it has been eroding since the 1990s) so the main slogan that social democrats could rally around and woo voters with is gone - all there's to do now is guard the achievements.

With this issue largely gone from the political agenda, other issues have managed to pop up and I would say that across Europe, the most important and most contested issue is that of immigration and integration. All of Western Europe right now is deeply divided over this issue and the right is very successful in criticizing what has been called 'a multicultural drama'. At the same time social democrats have a very hard time wrapping their heads around this issue and they are losing voters on account of it.
For the long term though I am very confident that some form of social democracy redux will arrive on the scene and that the main social democratic parties will rebrand themselves and regain their place at the center of the political stage.

As to the OP, social democracy (which is probably the best way to describe these parties even when they themselves do still call themselves socialist, just to avoid confusion with 1) Soviet socialism as it existed in Eastern Europe and 2) more left-wing parties that also call themselves socialist, and actually base their ideology much more firmly in traditional (i.e. Marxist) socialism than social democratic parties do) is not on the way out, it’s experiencing some trouble but that is not reflective of the failing of the welfare state that social democrats and conservatives/Christian democrats have erected since the second World War. Also, it has very few implications for whether the plans of the Obama administration will succeed or not, since these plans have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or social democracy. As I’ve said, I strongly feel that to claim otherwise is to be ignorant or disingenuous.

[Sam Stone]

Um, wouldn't this also extend to you, Sam? Your only cite in this thread has been to some chicken-little story in the Guardian. Why do you have any business commenting in this thread?

Given what I just said above, I'm through googling shit to attest to your reliability. I don't usually do this, but you've made yourself a special case: Cite??. Give me some links that prove anything you said, thanks.

Yeah, no problem. Here's an Excel File (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/56/33717459.xls. ) straight from the OECD. These numbers are slightly different than mine, which I have on file locally, but the trends are the same. It could be that this data is newer and has been adjusted, or that they've changed the methodology for calculating it.

For those who don't have Excel, here's what it shows:

In 2002, the average corporate income tax rate among 29 OECD countries not including the US was 30.9%. The U.S. was 39.3

In 2008, the average tax rate was 26% - the U.S. is 39.25. That's an almost 5% gap that has opened up between the U.S. and the rest of the OECD. The spreadsheet also shows which countries target corporate tax breaks - all but 12 of them do.

Now, let's assume that the tax incentive structure hasn't changed. If all of these countries have maintained roughly the same level of corporate tax breaks and incentives, then it's still the case that a 5% gap has opened up between the U.S. and the OECD in the past six years. That affects U.S. competitiveness.

Now let's look to the future. The Obama administration wants to start rolling back those corporate tax breaks. So the effective tax rate for U.S. corporations will go up. In the meantime, the trend for the rest of the OECD is still down. 2009 average taxes will be 25.8%, and they are going to go down even further, as many OECD countries have plans to continue reducing corporate tax rates. In Canada, for example, our federal corporate tax rate is scheduled to come down from 19% today to 12% in 2012.

Compare Canada to the U.S - in 2000, Canada had an overall corporate tax rate of 42.57%. The U.S.'s was 39.3%. In 2009, Canada's corporate tax rate is 31.32% (19% federal, the rest in provincial corporate taxes), and the U.S.'s is largely unchanged. By 2012, Canada's corporate tax rate will be 24%, and the U.S.'s will be unchanged, except that if Obama gets his way corporations will pay even more in tax.

Now, let's grant that U.S. corporations get more breaks than Canadian corporations have. All that means is that in 2000, American corporations had a huge advantage over Canadian corporations, and that by 2012 that advantage will be cut dramatically or eliminated (Canada has corporate tax breaks as well).

Finally, putting a tax rate of 40% on a corporation and then forcing them to jump through government hoops to get tax breaks is a horribly inefficient way to run an economy. You're creating an awful lot of deadweight loss through all the tax avoidance activity. Of course, every one of those tax breaks has a champion - both Republican and Democrat. Democrats love the tax breaks for environmental investment, for example. Both parties love tax breaks that push corporations into setting up in certain states. Both parties love big agriculture and shower it with tax breaks. And so it goes. Liberals love to go on about how horrible it is that businesses get tax breaks in the abstract, but when you look at the specifics, they're just as responsible for pushing them as are the Republicans.

In any event, the bottom line is that the U.S. is losing ground to the rest of the OECD on corporate tax policy. It's going to bite you.

[Dick Dastardly]

Yeah, no problem. Here's an Excel File (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/56/33717459.xls.) straight from the OECD. These numbers are slightly different than mine, which I have on file locally, but the trends are the same. It could be that this data is newer and has been adjusted, or that they've changed the methodology for calculating it.

For those who don't have Excel, here's what it shows:

In 2002, the average corporate income tax rate among 29 OECD countries not including the US was 30.9%. The U.S. was 39.3

In 2008, the average tax rate was 26% - the U.S. is 39.25. That's an almost 5% gap that has opened up between the U.S. and the rest of the OECD. The spreadsheet also shows which countries target corporate tax breaks - all but 12 of them do.

Now, let's assume that the tax incentive structure hasn't changed. If all of these countries have maintained roughly the same level of corporate tax breaks and incentives, then it's still the case that a 5% gap has opened up between the U.S. and the OECD in the past six years. That affects U.S. competitiveness.

Now let's look to the future. The Obama administration wants to start rolling back those corporate tax breaks. So the effective tax rate for U.S. corporations will go up. In the meantime, the trend for the rest of the OECD is still down. 2009 average taxes will be 25.8%, and they are going to go down even further, as many OECD countries have plans to continue reducing corporate tax rates. In Canada, for example, our federal corporate tax rate is scheduled to come down from 19% today to 12% in 2012.

Compare Canada to the U.S - in 2000, Canada had an overall corporate tax rate of 42.57%. The U.S.'s was 39.3%. In 2009, Canada's corporate tax rate is 31.32% (19% federal, the rest in provincial corporate taxes), and the U.S.'s is largely unchanged. By 2012, Canada's corporate tax rate will be 24%, and the U.S.'s will be unchanged, except that if Obama gets his way corporations will pay even more in tax.

Now, let's grant that U.S. corporations get more breaks than Canadian corporations have. All that means is that in 2000, American corporations had a huge advantage over Canadian corporations, and that by 2012 that advantage will be cut dramatically or eliminated (Canada has corporate tax breaks as well).

Finally, putting a tax rate of 40% on a corporation and then forcing them to jump through government hoops to get tax breaks is a horribly inefficient way to run an economy. You're creating an awful lot of deadweight loss through all the tax avoidance activity. Of course, every one of those tax breaks has a champion - both Republican and Democrat. Democrats love the tax breaks for environmental investment, for example. Both parties love tax breaks that push corporations into setting up in certain states. Both parties love big agriculture and shower it with tax breaks. And so it goes. Liberals love to go on about how horrible it is that businesses get tax breaks in the abstract, but when you look at the specifics, they're just as responsible for pushing them as are the Republicans.

In any event, the bottom line is that the U.S. is losing ground to the rest of the OECD on corporate tax policy. It's going to bite you.

Those are just the official numbers, not the actual numbers. Officially the US corporate tax rate is 39.something% but in reality, not so much.

Here's what the OECD shows about effective tax rates :

http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34533_39498298_1_1_1_1,00.html#samples_tables

and here's the effective rate on foreign earnings of US corporations :



In 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, U.S. multinational corporations paid about $16 billion of U.S. tax on approximately $700 billion of foreign active earnings – an effective U.S. tax rate of about 2.3%.
A January 2009 GAO report found that of the 100 largest U.S. corporations, 83 have subsidiaries in tax havens.
In the Cayman Islands, one address alone houses 18,857 corporations, very few of which have a physical presence in the islands.


http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg119.htm




And Obama is going to do little or nothing about this although he should, as it would have fuck all effect on the US economy except to drastically improve the revenue situation and help remove some of the overall tax burden on the US consumer, consumer spending being 70% of US GDP.

[Sam Stone]

Those are just the official numbers, not the actual numbers. Officially the US corporate tax rate is 39.something% but in reality, not so much.

I already addressed this. Those tax breaks were there in 2002, and there're still there now. Nothing has really changed in the U.S. But the rest of the OECD has been lowering its corporate tax rates, and it continues to do so. That means the competitive position of the U.S.with respect to the OECD countries is getting worse.

Here's what the OECD shows about effective tax rates :

http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34533_39498298_1_1_1_1,00.html#samples_tables


That shows overall taxes, not corporate taxes. It has nothing to with this discussion.

and here's the effective rate on foreign earnings of US corporations :



In 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, U.S. multinational corporations paid about $16 billion of U.S. tax on approximately $700 billion of foreign active earnings – an effective U.S. tax rate of about 2.3%.
A January 2009 GAO report found that of the 100 largest U.S. corporations, 83 have subsidiaries in tax havens.
In the Cayman Islands, one address alone houses 18,857 corporations, very few of which have a physical presence in the islands.


http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg119.htm


First of all, that just large multinationals. But it actually makes my point - a tax system which has high marginal rates is a bad thing, because it causes companies to focus more of their activity on tax sheltering. It would be far better to cut the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes to make up the difference.

Here's an article from Media Mattters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200902030003), which cites the GAO in saying that the U.S. effective tax rate is 25.2%. Also, look at Figure 2.7, taken from a World Bank report. It shows the U.S. effective corporate tax rate as already being higher than France and the UK. Germany and Canada both have plans to cut their effective corporate tax rates in the next three years, which means the U.S. effective corporate tax rate will be higher than all of its major OECD partners. And of course the raw tax rate will be MUCH higher, meaning corporations in the U.S. have to engage in all of this tax avoidance activity just to prevent themselves from being taxed higher than any corporations in the world, and even with all that effort, they'll still pay higher rates than their major OECD partners do.


And Obama is going to do little or nothing about this although he should, as it would have fuck all effect on the US economy except to drastically improve the revenue situation and help remove some of the overall tax burden on the US consumer, consumer spending being 70% of US GDP.

If he does it and doesn't also lower overall tax rates to compensate, it would be very destructive. Like it or not, the ability of corporations to pack up and leave is much greater now than it was in the past.

One way to think about those foreign subsidiaries and tax havens - they may be the only thing keeping ANY part of the corporation in America. Eliminate the ability of a corporation to lower its tax burden while keeping corporate rates at 40%, and you've just set up a situation where corporations will simply pack up and leave the United States entirely. Why wouldn't they just move to Canada, where the corporate rate will be half? Or if they stay in the U.S., how do you think their products will be able to compete with ours, or with products from other major trading partners?

[Never Say Dice]

Why do you think Socialism is failing in Europe? The better phrasing is Why are vested moneyed interests gaining in Europe? And the answer is that as elections moved from door to door get out the vote campaigns to TV smear campaigns, money became everything. Rich people buy politicians.

[PrettyVacant]

There is now a right-leaning government in Germany, France and Italy. Portugal's Socialists lost their absolute majority. In Britain and Spain, the last two major countries with left-leaning governments
:D


That's "right-leaning" by European standards, which is several steps to the left of Obama. Mainly out of recession as well.

[PrettyVacant]

The better phrasing is Why are vested moneyed interests gaining in Europe?
Because it's a cycle, like the economic cycle.

[Švejk]

The better phrasing is Why are vested moneyed interests gaining in Europe? And the answer is that as elections moved from door to door get out the vote campaigns to TV smear campaigns, money became everything. Rich people buy politicians.

:confused:

1) vested moneyed interests are not gaining in Europe;
2) by and large, politicians are not bought in Europe. Campaigns have not changed into 'smear campaigns'; obviously TV and the internet are playing a bigger role but it's certainly not everything. Similarly, campaign financing in most European countries is NOTHING like it is in the states.

All in all, I would say that your post has absolutely no pertinence to European Politics whatsoever.

[Zoe]

Henrichek, do you have to pay for health care in Sweden? Do you have to pay a dentist? Do you have to pay to put your mother in a place to care for her when she is very old? Do you have to pay the hospital when your wife has a baby? How much vacation time do you get every year?

What do you mean about personal integrity in Sweden? What do you think is causing that to decline? Sweden has a good reputation in the world.

[Henrichek]

Henrichek, do you have to pay for health care in Sweden? Do you have to pay a dentist? Do you have to pay to put your mother in a place to care for her when she is very old? Do you have to pay the hospital when your wife has a baby? How much vacation time do you get every year?

What do you mean about personal integrity in Sweden? What do you think is causing that to decline? Sweden has a good reputation in the world.

Unfortunately I am not the best person to explain this as I have been minimally involved, as I am quite healthy, though I will attempt some short answers. They are not as simple as 'yes' or 'no'. The specifics are not really relevant to the thread, but since you asked I will try to provide answers. Numbers are just examples as they might vary somewhat from region to region, but should give a general idea.

In general you don't pay for health care here, but you have to pay for medicine that is not part of the procedure, though there is some mechanism to prevent those costs from getting out of hand, I think by decreasing the share paid by the patient based on the total costs incurred over a year. So you pay 100% of your prescription costs up to a point, then the share decreases until you hit a cost ceiling, after which the rest of the years' costs are free. I also believe you have small daily fees in the case of longer hospital stays, covering food. There are also small fees for general examination and emergency visits (few tens of dollars).

All dentist costs are covered up until you are 19 or 20, I don't remember which. After that some expensive procedures are still covered, but I think most things you have to pay for yourself. Hm, seems like you pay 100% until $450, then the government pays 50% of the rest up until $2200, and 85% after that, so it's still not particularly cheap.

Elder care is mostly done in the person's home, as long as that is possible, by getting visits for food, cleaning, hygiene, etc, depending on what services you need. When the health situation gets bad enough that you can't be taken care of properly at home, there are retirement homes and I think some intermediate options. For these things you generally have to pay for yourself up until certain monthly limits, and also based on income, such that you will at least have a specific amount of money left after all care is paid for.

I think childbirth is free too, except the previously mentioned daily costs for a hospital stay. I think nowadays people go home rather quickly after delivering anyway, so the costs are minimal, pretty much the food costs you'd have to pay anyway if you weren't there.

5 weeks vacation.

About deteriorating personal integrity I meant things like allowing surveillance of internet communications that pass the border, retention of communication details like who calls who, when, from where (in case of mobile phones), SMS, E-mail, and so on. Maybe I should have used the word privacy instead. I suppose the reasons they give are for security, and law enforcement. Actually, it would be wrong of me to blame all those things on the right wing alliance, as the social democrats have been involved too and certainly share the blame.

[Kobal2]

Ah, fuck it.
I've been meaning to say this for quite some time, and since this thread is still being updated, I might as well speak : OP, and the rest of you 'Merikuns : for fook's sake, when will you realize there's no such thing as "Europe" ?

We are not a singular entity. We are not even a federal entity. What goes on in Great Britain has absolutely no relation whatsoever with what happens in Sweden, or France, or Spain, or Poland.
Hell, for that matter, the average citizen of Spain has no idea what the political system of Great Britain is. I (French, apolitical) have no fucking idea who the president of Sweden is (if they do have a president. Could be a king, or a prime minister, or a Sultan for all I know). I have no idea what the political system of Greece is. I have no idea what the different political parties of Germany are. In short : we are different countries, with wildly different cultures, different languages, political views and histories and most of all no relations to each other. We're all operating in a vacuum.

The only thing European countries have in common is antagonism : we all hate each other. With a passion. We all fought each other at some point, we all resent European codes and laws and standards ; and when we do acknowledge the benefits of a single currency, open borders etc... it's only grudgingly. It's what makes Europe work - our one and only common ground.

So please, please stop acting and rhetoricizing (here's a neologism for ya) like Europe is some kind of united block, some kind of belated United States Light where Portugal is Kansas and Denmark is North Dakota. It's not like that. Portugal is Kansas. Denmark is Ghana. Get it ? Got it ? Good.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah, fuck it.
I've been meaning to say this for quite some time, and since this thread is still being updated, I might as well speak : OP, and the rest of you 'Merikuns : for fook's sake, when will you realize there's no such thing as "Europe" ?
That was a waste of electrons. The OP is a Canadian who habitually refers to "The Left" as a monolith.

[gonzomax]

Strange but all these countries are Capitalistic. There are no Socialist countries. Every country is a mixture heavily effected by corporate power ,financially and politically . The disaster of the last few years that the financial markets visited upon the entire globe has made countries uncomfortable with the " highly educated experts". Who can trust them? There has to be a backlash . Why there aren't a bunch of them in jail. I don't know.
I suppose Socialism is spending some money on the welfare of the common people. Improving the security of the citizens is not a bad idea, unless you live in America.

[Ruminator]

OP, and the rest of you 'Merikuns : for fook's sake, when will you realize there's no such thing as "Europe" ?

We are not a singular entity.

For negotiating treaties and tracking the particular athletes of Olympics or World Cup soccer, you are correct: you are not a singular entity.

However, for many discussions about economics or plate tectonics "Europe" is a convenient shorthand label.

Your nationalistic rant is misapplied here.

[Dick Dastardly]

I already addressed this. Those tax breaks were there in 2002, and there're still there now. Nothing has really changed in the U.S. But the rest of the OECD has been lowering its corporate tax rates, and it continues to do so. That means the competitive position of the U.S.with respect to the OECD countries is getting worse.



That shows overall taxes, not corporate taxes. It has nothing to with this discussion.



First of all, that just large multinationals. But it actually makes my point - a tax system which has high marginal rates is a bad thing, because it causes companies to focus more of their activity on tax sheltering. It would be far better to cut the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes to make up the difference.

Here's an article from Media Mattters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200902030003), which cites the GAO in saying that the U.S. effective tax rate is 25.2%. Also, look at Figure 2.7, taken from a World Bank report. It shows the U.S. effective corporate tax rate as already being higher than France and the UK. Germany and Canada both have plans to cut their effective corporate tax rates in the next three years, which means the U.S. effective corporate tax rate will be higher than all of its major OECD partners. And of course the raw tax rate will be MUCH higher, meaning corporations in the U.S. have to engage in all of this tax avoidance activity just to prevent themselves from being taxed higher than any corporations in the world, and even with all that effort, they'll still pay higher rates than their major OECD partners do.




If he does it and doesn't also lower overall tax rates to compensate, it would be very destructive. Like it or not, the ability of corporations to pack up and leave is much greater now than it was in the past.

One way to think about those foreign subsidiaries and tax havens - they may be the only thing keeping ANY part of the corporation in America. Eliminate the ability of a corporation to lower its tax burden while keeping corporate rates at 40%, and you've just set up a situation where corporations will simply pack up and leave the United States entirely. Why wouldn't they just move to Canada, where the corporate rate will be half? Or if they stay in the U.S., how do you think their products will be able to compete with ours, or with products from other major trading partners?

OK, now your own numbers show that the US has among the lowest rates of corporate taxation of the major economys which is contrary to your earlier claims that it had the highest rate. We're much closer to agreement on this now than we were before.

And if you think some US or foreign corporation isn'r going to invest in the world's richest market because taxes somewhere else are lower then you're off your rocker. Not only is America is the world's wealthist market, but it's full of highly-educated smart natives who can help you make and sell your stuff to the hundreds of millions of (comparatively) rich, smart natives who make up that market. The market also has a fantastic transport and distribution infrastructure and the world's best corporate legal and financial services, all huge advantages that add value to the whole invest-in-America thing. In short all the advantages that comparatively high-tax developed economys have over their competitiors. Even if American corporate taxes were higher than average or the highest it would do little to discourage investment where you can make the most money in return. The idea that a. corporate taxes are too high and b. that companies will invest more if these nonexisten high taxes are cut is just boilerplate crap from the same right-wing nutjob think tanks that have spent the past few decades claiming tax cuts pay for themselves and lead to higher economic growth and that the more the economy and the financial system is deregulated, the better economic situation we'll have. None of it has any basis in reality.

[Kobal2]

For negotiating treaties and tracking the particular athletes of Olympics or World Cup soccer, you are correct: you are not a singular entity.

However, for many discussions about economics or plate tectonics "Europe" is a convenient shorthand label.

Your nationalistic rant is misapplied here.

Except this has nothing to do with economics - Sam wants to know if a grand slam of right wing parties winning head-of-state elections is symptomatic of some European trend. It's not, and it can't be because we don't consult each other when making political decisions. We don't check what right wingers and left wingers across the border are doing, we're not looking at the political, social and economical record of the British Labour party before we cast our vote for Der Labourisches Partei or El Trabajisto Partido or whatever.

For example, in France Sarkozy got elected in large part for two reasons : France is evidently not mature enough to handle a woman in charge (you wouldn't believe the sexist crap that was being flinged around... or maybe you would, since Hillary caught some too), and the 2005 riots which scared the proles quite a bit, a fear Sarko played like a cheap fiddle not entirely unlike Bush harped on terrorism. How does that fit in with your socialist collapse, Sam ?

[Ruminator]

... is symptomatic of some European trend. It's not, and it can't be because we don't consult each other when making political decisions.

What bizarre analysis.

It can't be a "trend" because nobody "consulted each other"? The definition of a "trend" is coordinated and deliberate coordination?! That makes no sense.

When historians say that the 18th century saw a "trend" across Europe of replacing monarchies with democratic governments, we don't discount the word "trend" just because revolutionaries in each country didn't have Twitter accounts to consult each other about Enlightenment thinking.

And when archaeologists notice a worldwide "trend" of humans in South America and Asia farming the land instead of hunting animals, we don't dismiss the idea of a "trend" just because those early civilizations didn't use satellite phones to consult each other about gardening techniques.

I think you're being unreasonable.

If you still insist on your bizarre definition, please give an example of a legitimate "trend" that was caused by heads of state "consulting with each other" as you call it.

[Kobal2]

What bizarre analysis.

It can't be a "trend" because nobody "consulted each other"? The definition of a "trend" is coordinated and deliberate coordination?! That makes no sense.

When historians say that the 18th century saw a "trend" across Europe of replacing monarchies with democratic governments, we don't discount the word "trend" just because revolutionaries in each country didn't have Twitter accounts to consult each other about Enlightenment thinking.

And when archaeologists notice a worldwide "trend" of humans in South America and Asia farming the land instead of hunting animals, we don't dismiss the idea of a "trend" just because those early civilizations didn't use satellite phones to consult each other about gardening techniques.

I think you're being unreasonable.

If you still insist on your bizarre definition, please give an example of a legitimate "trend" that was caused by heads of state "consulting with each other" as you call it.

Fair point. As usual, I skipped mental steps while talking, and worded what steps I didn't skip in a weird way. What I mean is that each country will have its own reasons for electing a right wing government. Here in France it's the "law and order, tough on crime" angle. Somewhere else it might be economic reasons. Somewhere else a protest vote against some scandal, et caetera.

Reading it as a universal testament that Socialism Will Fail and that everyone across Europe is coming to that realization all at once, as the OP seems to do, is misguided at best. Clearer ?

[Sam Stone]

Fair point. As usual, I skipped mental steps while talking, and worded what steps I didn't skip in a weird way. What I mean is that each country will have its own reasons for electing a right wing government. Here in France it's the "law and order, tough on crime" angle. Somewhere else it might be economic reasons. Somewhere else a protest vote against some scandal, et caetera.

Reading it as a universal testament that Socialism Will Fail and that everyone across Europe is coming to that realization all at once, as the OP seems to do, is misguided at best. Clearer ?

The 'universal testament that socialism will fail' is not something I said. The OP was quoting from the New York Times, and the title of the thread also comes from the Times. I even said in a later message that I recognize that pendulums swing around, and I'm sure the new right-wing governments will get their own trouncing some time in the future.

As for treating all of Europe the same... Of course it isn't. But then, when people speak of 'Americans', they aren't taking into account that rural Texans are very different people than Berkeley residents. All of us tend to speak in generalities when it comes to such things, because otherwise communication becomes tedious. I'm fully aware that the political forces in France are very different than what they are in Sweden or the UK. And again, the 'Europe' generalization was from the New York Times - not me.

[Švejk]

What I mean is that each country will have its own reasons for electing a right wing government. Here in France it's the "law and order, tough on crime" angle.

What do you think about my analysis up in post #68 then? Up there, I argued social democrats across Europe are struggling with a number of issues with regard to which they need to redefine themselves, including most importantly immigration and integration. You mentioned that the 2005 riots cost the PS the elections. Now look me deep in the virtual lies and tell me that the PS is not struggling with this issue of immigration and integration, making a stand against social inequity while at the same time guarding national identity. It's tough on social democrats. And it is something that is seen across Western Europe, which is because there is such a thing as a shared ideology that Social Democratic parties across Europe adhere to. You may not know this:

I (French, apolitical) have no fucking idea who the president of Sweden is (if they do have a president. Could be a king, or a prime minister, or a Sultan for all I know). I have no idea what the political system of Greece is. I have no idea what the different political parties of Germany are.

but it's true nonetheless.

This development of struggling social democracy is not, and there I agree with you, indicative of the final collapse of social democracy, and certainly not of the collapse of the welfare state that social democrats helped build, and it is most certainly no indication whatsoever for how Obama's plans will fare since he is no social democrat by a long shot and to call him or the Democratic Party that is to either to be stupid or to be disingenuous.

[gonzomax]

All these countries are Capitalistic. I suppose some living in a black hole of right wing ideology call any programs that help the people as socialistic.
Our hospitals, clinics, doctors ,our suppliers of medical equipment are all capitalistic. Nobody has suggested a socialistic system for any of them . All of these are for profit. The only group in question is the insurance companies. They do not provide health care whatsoever. They detract from it. They add a layer of inefficiency and cost.
If it is socialistic to care for the weak and under-represented ,I am a socialist. If it is socialistic to care about those who are very ill and will lose everything, I am a socialist. If caring for sick children who will deplete their parents savings is socialistic, then i am a socialist. If stopping people from losing their homes and declaring bankruptcy is socialism, sign me up.
Right wingers have to face it. They are selfish pricks who don't care about the people. They suck up to the rich figuring they will be rewarded with some trickle down while obfuscating their beliefs as being a help to the country. It is a black mark for America that we show the world what selfish assholes we are.