I am not sure "fascism" is the common bond. Slow, bureaucratic procedures with relatively high capital requirements seem to be the norm in continental Europe, with countries moving away from that model at different speeds.

Indeed.

Though Italy and Germany and to some extents Japan had some experience with fascism. The current constitution of Germany was heavily influenced by American demands (and the Japanese constitution, too).

You could say that Germany had a strong history of social-monarchy, and then social-democracy. (With some fascism in a 12 year year period and 40 years of socialism in the east.)

The common connection between companies that don't do so well is corruption, not previous government choices.

As far as following Adam Smith's works, the economy the US has is a caricature of Smith's ideas (e.g. Smith was anti-monopoly).

1. Do you think that the form of a government does not affect its tendency toward corruption?

2. Note that I was talking about Smith's influence on early US government. The nation has obviously strayed from that quite a lot since then -- and has economically gone downhill quite a lot, as well.

1. Yes and no. The smaller you make the government's power the less their corruption will matter. On the other hand, if the government handles more things (e.g. Sweden) then I would expect corruption to be attacked more because it harms more people.

The US is kind of a special case I think. They have an absolutely enormous government that few people trust and even fewer think anything can be done to change it. Sweden, for contract, is voted the most Democratic country. Given the size of their government, this seems to imply that they are much more positive about it.