added picture for coolnessJenspm wrote:
cba to take the test again, last time I got:
Economic Left/Right: 2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.33
i would like to see lowings results
That's why I put this thread uprammunition wrote:
i would like to see lowings results
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
purple = barney.JohnG@lt wrote:
Purple is for the cool kids
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
This is a surprise, but pretty close to center as I am
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
Somewhere in the Ghandi-Mandela neighbourhood. Thought it would be slightly closer to the right given some of the answers I gave.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-07 09:11:31)
I personally think the questions in the test are phrased in such a way that it makes the chances of ending up an economic liberal from the results rather high.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
People in the red or green squares are evil communists.
People in the blue and purple squares are fascists
Nah, the people in the green squares are just idealists. Socialism in theory is in the green square but it can't exist in practice outside of the red square.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
People in the red or green squares are evil communists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Blue square, yesish. They believe in government intervention into a free market economy which is where they fail. Also happens to be the square of the social conservatives.Lucien wrote:
People in the blue and purple squares are fascists
Purple believes in personal freedom. Period.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Lack of government intervention is kind of what spawned the era of free, cheap and easy credit, which coupled with the stupidity of individuals and the greed and riskiness of bankers destroyed half the wealth of the known world this past two years and stripped all manner of people both responsible and irresponsible of their livelihoods.JohnG@lt wrote:
Blue square, yesish. They believe in government intervention into a free market economy which is where they fail. Also happens to be the square of the social conservatives.Lucien wrote:
People in the blue and purple squares are fascists
Purple believes in personal freedom. Period.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-07 09:22:59)
I don't know about you but I was just joking.JohnG@lt wrote:
Blue square, yesish. They believe in government intervention into a free market economy which is where they fail. Also happens to be the square of the social conservatives.Lucien wrote:
People in the blue and purple squares are fascists
Purple believes in personal freedom. Period.
Also without government intervention, that "free market economy" system will fall flat on its face.
Actually, it was government intervention that encouraged the free, cheap and easy credit. When you've got the government backing your risks you take more of them. If the US government had not bailed out the banking industry here they would've learned to be more conservative with their money. Also does not help that the Fed kept interest rates at or near zero for so long making it that much easier for banks to borrow money and then lend it out. There was also legislation that essentially forced banks to lend to people with lower incomes so that the politicians could say they helped the poor.CameronPoe wrote:
Lack of government intervention is kind of what spawned the era of free, cheap and easy credit, which coupled with the stupidity of individuals and the greed and riskiness of bankers destroyed half the wealth of the known world this past two years and stripped all manner of people both responsible and irresponsible of their livelihoods.
Banks on their own in a free market environment are very conservative by nature. When they have a safety net they will be more risky. You want more fiscally responsible banks? Remove government intervention and safety nets and the mess won't happen again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Quite the opposite. It's the government intervention that causes it to fall flat on its face.Lucien wrote:
I don't know about you but I was just joking.JohnG@lt wrote:
Blue square, yesish. They believe in government intervention into a free market economy which is where they fail. Also happens to be the square of the social conservatives.Lucien wrote:
People in the blue and purple squares are fascists
Purple believes in personal freedom. Period.
Also without government intervention, that "free market economy" system will fall flat on its face.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Same spot as Nelson Mandela.
Many of those things you mention were not the case in Ireland and other European nations that have suffered from the same type of implosion as happened in the US. No government prompted banks to lend to those that should not be given loans over here (and in the US the government did not force banks to lend to people with lower incomes, period, no 'essentially' about it...). In Europe interest rates were higher than in the US. If America had not bailed out the banking industry then yeah the banks would have learned their lesson but America as a nation and free market capitalism as a system would have bitten the dust in the face of a violent revolution in light of the complete and utter breakdown of the system of credit upon which free market capitalism has come to rely upon. It would have been 'The Grapes of Wrath' mark II. It would have ruined far too many people and the result would have been anarchy. Free market capitalism is too idealistic. Great in theory, nowhere near perfect in reality. There has to be balance and oversight, no two ways about it. Systems that don't serve society will ultimately be overthrown if they fail in a sharp and sever manner.JohnG@lt wrote:
Actually, it was government intervention that encouraged the free, cheap and easy credit. When you've got the government backing your risks you take more of them. If the US government had not bailed out the banking industry here they would've learned to be more conservative with their money. Also does not help that the Fed kept interest rates at or near zero for so long making it that much easier for banks to borrow money and then lend it out. There was also legislation that essentially forced banks to lend to people with lower incomes so that the politicians could say they helped the poor.
Banks on their own in a free market environment are very conservative by nature. When they have a safety net they will be more risky. You want more fiscally responsible banks? Remove government intervention and safety nets and the mess won't happen again.
And your second assertion regarding banks operating in a free market environment has been shown up to be incorrect in this crisis. They were anything but conservative. Things like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley deregulation act* gave them free reign to do whatever they liked. Banks threw caution to the wind and didn't give a shit about collateral, capitalisation or risk - as long as the ecconomy was growing they'd be A-O-K.... inflating the economies of the world unrealistically until they popped.
* 1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) does not include any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).
2. The Commission (Securities & Exchanges Commission) is prohibited from registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any security-based swap agreement[.] ...
3. The Commission is prohibited from ... promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing rules; or ... issuing orders of general applicability; ... as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading with respect to any security-based swap agreement[.]
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulso … -a-failure
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-07 09:51:10)
Your banks failed because they lent to ours and ours failed. Every bank in the world had far more money lent out than was rational. It was a spiraling upward vortex in which they each profited off of the interest paid to the next guy down the line. Of course it failed, it was a house of cards and all it needed was one push to make it collapse.CameronPoe wrote:
Many of those things you mention were not the case in Ireland and other European nations that have suffered from the same type of implosion as happened in the US. No government prompted banks to lend to those that should not be given loans over here (and in the US the government did not force banks to lend to people with lower incomes, period, no 'essentially' about it...). In Europe interest rates were higher than in the US. If America had not bailed out the banking industry then yeah the banks would have learned their lesson but America as a nation and free market capitalism as a system would have bitten the dust in the face of a violent revolution in light of the complete and utter breakdown of the system of credit upon which free market capitalism has come to rely upon. It would have been 'The Grapes of Wrath' mark II. It would have ruined far too many people and the result would have been anarchy. Free market capitalism is too idealistic. Great in theory, nowhere near perfect in reality. There has to be balance and oversight, no two ways about it. Systems that don't serve society will ultimately be overthrown if they fail in a sharp and sever manner.JohnG@lt wrote:
Actually, it was government intervention that encouraged the free, cheap and easy credit. When you've got the government backing your risks you take more of them. If the US government had not bailed out the banking industry here they would've learned to be more conservative with their money. Also does not help that the Fed kept interest rates at or near zero for so long making it that much easier for banks to borrow money and then lend it out. There was also legislation that essentially forced banks to lend to people with lower incomes so that the politicians could say they helped the poor.
Banks on their own in a free market environment are very conservative by nature. When they have a safety net they will be more risky. You want more fiscally responsible banks? Remove government intervention and safety nets and the mess won't happen again.
And your second assertion regarding banks operating in a free market environment has been shown up to be incorrect in this crisis. They were anything but conservative. Things like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley deregulation act* gave them free reign to do whatever they liked. Banks threw caution to the wind and didn't give a shit about collateral, capitalisation or risk - as long as the ecconomy was growing they'd be A-O-K.... inflating the economies of the world unrealistically until they popped.
* 1. The definition of "security" in section 2(a)(1) does not include any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 USCS § 78c note]).
2. The Commission (Securities & Exchanges Commission) is prohibited from registering, or requiring, recommending, or suggesting, the registration under this title of any security-based swap agreement[.] ...
3. The Commission is prohibited from ... promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing rules; or ... issuing orders of general applicability; ... as prophylactic measures against fraud, manipulation, or insider trading with respect to any security-based swap agreement[.]
Now, if you really want to get down to it I blame public corporations in general for a lot of the ills of our economies. When there is no ownership, there is no vested interest in seeing a company succeed. The CEO isn't losing much more than his stock options, he's still pocketing millions of dollars. Now if the company were privately owned the family or person that owned it would have a vested interest in whether it succeeds or fails and would take a much longer view on properties it controls (hopefully). When the only impetus driving our economy is the quick buck and short term profits the entire system is set up to collapse. That's my real gripe but there isn't fuckall I can do about it in a world obsessed with the stock market and publicly traded companies.
Governments role in business should be limited to prosecuting collusion and fraud and setting up environmental protection laws. That's it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What a bunch of bullshit loaded questions.
Don't forget to add " I would rather be a socialist than be eaten by an alligator", so you can show how 100% of the population loves socialism.
Don't forget to add " I would rather be a socialist than be eaten by an alligator", so you can show how 100% of the population loves socialism.
STFU i bet you had the same results as Hitler.lowing wrote:
What a bunch of bullshit loaded questions.
Don't forget to add " I would rather be a socialist than be eaten by an alligator", so you can show how 100% of the population loves socialism.
Post your results
Yeah take the test
lol, no thanks, I will not take a loaded biased test. After reading the questions on the first page I laughed and left it.rammunition wrote:
STFU i bet you had the same results as Hitler.lowing wrote:
What a bunch of bullshit loaded questions.
Don't forget to add " I would rather be a socialist than be eaten by an alligator", so you can show how 100% of the population loves socialism.
Post your results
Again ask something like. I would rather be Communist, than my parachute not opening, then gauge proudly and beat your chest as to how many love communism.
Funny, every time I've taken the test I've ended up an economic conservative. But, I also know what it means to be economically conservative. Do you?lowing wrote:
lol, no thanks, I will not take a loaded biased test. After reading the questions on the first page I laughed and left it.rammunition wrote:
STFU i bet you had the same results as Hitler.lowing wrote:
What a bunch of bullshit loaded questions.
Don't forget to add " I would rather be a socialist than be eaten by an alligator", so you can show how 100% of the population loves socialism.
Post your results
Again ask something like. I would rather be Communist, than my parachute not opening, then gauge proudly and beat your chest as to how many love communism.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The system failed because it was underregulated as admitted by the types of staunch hardline right wingers that once crowed about corporate freedom from the rooftops (and who actually took part in the deregulation)....JohnG@lt wrote:
Your banks failed because they lent to ours and ours failed. Every bank in the world had far more money lent out than was rational. It was a spiraling upward vortex in which they each profited off of the interest paid to the next guy down the line. Of course it failed, it was a house of cards and all it needed was one push to make it collapse.
Wall Street Journal
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulso … -a-failure
There have to be rules. Especially for things so gigantic and complex as the GLOBAL financial system. It's barely understandable never mind critically important to the health and wellbeing of every single human on earth.
What you're advocating is impractical and would itself ultimately require some sort of government legislation!!JohnG@lt wrote:
Now, if you really want to get down to it I blame public corporations in general for a lot of the ills of our economies. When there is no ownership, there is no vested interest in seeing a company succeed. The CEO isn't losing much more than his stock options, he's still pocketing millions of dollars. Now if the company were privately owned the family or person that owned it would have a vested interest in whether it succeeds or fails and would take a much longer view on properties it controls (hopefully). When the only impetus driving our economy is the quick buck and short term profits the entire system is set up to collapse. That's my real gripe but there isn't fuckall I can do about it in a world obsessed with the stock market and publicly traded companies.
Governments role in business should be limited to prosecuting collusion and fraud and setting up environmental protection laws. That's it.
What is your suggestion? Place limits on who owns shares in companies? Place limits on the size of a companies and corporations? Introduce legislation to ensure companies are not run in a short-sighted manner? Free market = quick buck. Free market = get in while it's on the way up and get out while it's on the way down. Period. Should the government mandate a fixed term in which you must hold shares so that you can't game the market? I fail to see the practical side of your argument - a practical side that doesn't involve government intervention.
My opinion: the government, elected by the people based mainly on the performance of the economy (among other things), must provide oversight and regulation of the financial sector so that irresponsible short term gain practices do not inflate disastrous bubbles, which in itself reassures investors in what would now be viewed as an extremely high risk investment sector - a far too important one for every man, woman and child to allow fail. It is all a question of balance though. Too much intervention is definitely bad. A sweet point must be found. And the people will oust those who are failing to find that sweet point.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-07 10:07:10)