BF2S Forums The Political Compass Test

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

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)....

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.

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 you're advocating is impractical and would itself ultimately require some sort of government legislation!!

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.

JohnG@lt wrote:

This is just something we'll never see eye to eye on. Yes, there will always be scumbags in it for the quick buck. There will always be profit mad shareholders as long as there are publicly traded companies. It is the nature of the beast. I'm not asking for government intervention at all, I'm suggesting companies set up their corporate charters in such a way that they are not beholden to the sharks out there that buy into companies for the short term, jack up profits and productivity to unrealistic heights and then bail as soon as the company reaches a peak. That's something for corporations to police themselves, the government doesn't have to.

As far as free market = quick buck, I beg to differ. What you are seeing is rampant predatory practices and people too weak to stand up to them. It happens in any form of government or any economy. They predators always go after the weak. It's just the way nature is. The problem is you can't set up regulations to stop them because by going after that 0.001% of the population, you screw over everyone else and make them jump through hoops.

And yes, capitalism is just as flawed as socialism or any other economic plan anyone can dream up because theory dies as soon as it meets human personalities. However, I happen to like it a lot more than the alternatives.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-10-07 10:19:25)

CameronPoe wrote:

I agree that we will not see eye to eye but people rarely see completely eye to eye anyway. I can agree with you that as soon as theory meets humankind things begin to derail. What you ask of corporations in itself is extremely idealistic. In reality only one thing really matters in the boardroom when it comes to decision time: the balance sheet and the quarterly bonus.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Which is why I believe in privately owned entities instead of publicly owned corporations. When I start a business in the future I will never take it public even though it would mean easy access to investment dollars. I'll have more vested interest in seeing the company prosper in the long term because it's mine. I own it. If I take it public and turn it over to a CEO what does he care if the company fails? He'll just find another company to run into the ground.

Again, this is just a personal prejudice. I'm not suggesting that it is the best solution for everyone, but it is the best solution for me and my future family in my eyes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

True. I'll have to make up for it in quality

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

rammunition wrote:

STFU i bet you had the same results as Hitler.

Post your results

lol, no thanks, I will not take a loaded biased test. After reading the questions on the first page I laughed and left it.

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?

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-07 10:38:36)

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

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?

Yup. It means do not spend money you do have, like funding govt. healthcare, govt. retirement, govt. auto industry etc... this test is blatantly biased to the left that it is ridiculous. I started taking it an could not stomache the collar lead questioning. So I stopped.

rammunition wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

rammunition wrote:

he's "singed out", runs away when he is backed into a corner with no counter-attacks left. Typical from him

What are you talking about?

lowing, put on the spot and now has done a runner

rammunition wrote:

lowing wrote:

rammunition wrote:

lowing, put on the spot and now has done a runner

nope, you want to weigh me down with bullshit, then boast how I can't swim. I am not going to enter that kind of debate.

oh the irony

rammunition wrote:

lowing wrote:

rammunition wrote:

oh the irony

really, how so?

don't get me started Hitler, sorry lowing. It will probably need a new thread

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2009-10-07 11:07:20)