Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Sydney wrote:

No shit, that's what everyone in the government is saying, yet nothing seems to be happening...
You can't blame capitalism for that though. That's just plain old fashioned theft. Hell, most of the theft in the US is done with the approval of the people in power here. You buy one senator and he writes legislation that fucks over your competition. It's lovely and it's not capitalism, it's corruption.
"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
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7082|Reykjavík, Iceland.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sydney wrote:

No shit, that's what everyone in the government is saying, yet nothing seems to be happening...
You can't blame capitalism for that though. That's just plain old fashioned theft. Hell, most of the theft in the US is done with the approval of the people in power here. You buy one senator and he writes legislation that fucks over your competition. It's lovely and it's not capitalism, it's corruption.
But with good old fashion socialism, the banks wouldn't have had the freedom to fuck up like that, all their actions would be publicly viewable.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Sydney wrote:

But with good old fashion socialism, the banks wouldn't have had the freedom to fuck up like that, all their actions would be publicly viewable.
Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence

And you're wrong because corruption and fraud happens under any government type.
"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
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|7082|Reykjavík, Iceland.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sydney wrote:

But with good old fashion socialism, the banks wouldn't have had the freedom to fuck up like that, all their actions would be publicly viewable.
Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence

And you're wrong because corruption and fraud happens under any government type.
Yeah, I know that. I guess I'm just the opposite of the stereotypical redstate socialism-hater
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/Dilbert_X_Compass.png
No surprises there.

Economic Left/Right: -4.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.7

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-07 17:01:17)

Fuck Israel
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
I used to be a straight liberal but I suspect I've moved towards the libertarian end more.

---

Oh yeah.


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

https://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.75&soc=-3.13
Some quite good articles on the site about spectrum politics btw.

In 2008, we're hearing more than ever from politicians that 'right' and 'left' are no longer meaningful terms. To the contrary, they're as meaningful as ever, providing that it's understood that they're simply defining economic positions. However, with all the main parties embracing to a greater or lesser extent the prevailing neoliberal economic orthodoxy, it's increasingly - and embarrassingly - difficult for them to define their economic differences. No wonder they're anxious to scrap this measure !

Voter turnout is highest when ideological differences are most significant. This helps explain why the voter turnout is lower in the US than in all other western democracies , most of which have a multiplicity of parties and proportional representation. In the UK, voter turnout may continue to fall to US levels. Lowering the voting age isn't likely to excite participation in elections when the choice is less and less to do with a clash of visions than mere managerial competence. And without those traditionally big choices, one might well wonder where this is going to ultimately leave democracy.

Last edited by Spark (2009-10-07 16:34:24)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

JohnG@lt wrote:

west-phoenix-az wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry won't paste properly, however I have left/right at 4.00

and social libertarian/authoritarian at -1.33

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faceboo … ;soc=-1.33
fix'd
Welcome to the purple people club

Now repeat after me: "The Republican Party sucks and does not have my best interests in mind. I prefer to be free and understand that this means letting other people make their own choices when it comes to religion, abortion or whatever else as long as it does not impinge on my own freedoms. I choose to live rationally and refuse to let my religion, dogma or anything else color my views. I am a Libertarian" - (tm) JohnG@lt
From what I've seen from lowing over the years, he does basically have this opinion towards social/religious conservatism. So I would say it's fairly accurate tbh.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
The Republican Party sucks and does not have my best interests in mind. I prefer to be free and understand that this means letting other people make their own choices when it comes to religion, abortion or whatever else as long as it does not impinge on my own freedoms. I choose to live rationally and refuse to let my religion, dogma or anything else color my views. I am a Libertarian
I'd add, 'as long as it does not impinge on my own freedoms or anyone elses'

Indoctrination of children being an example, allowing your country to invade another for no reason being another.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-07 16:55:02)

Fuck Israel
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6820|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sydney wrote:

But with good old fashion socialism, the banks wouldn't have had the freedom to fuck up like that, all their actions would be publicly viewable.
Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence
So what?

That means absolutely nothing. The complexity of the complete finances of multi-national banks means it would take years of studying their books to ensure they're not fucking up, by which time it would be too late.

Without (sufficient) dedicated public regulation this sort of thing is bound to happen. Risks often equate to high profits and high bonuses, which drive bankers to take greater risks, which puts the banks at greater risk - with all those risks driven by the incentive of higher profits in an enormous market something was bound to go horribly wrong at some point. That's why capitalist economic models are prone to the whole boom and bust cycle thing, plenty of historic precedent.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Republican Party sucks and does not have my best interests in mind. I prefer to be free and understand that this means letting other people make their own choices when it comes to religion, abortion or whatever else as long as it does not impinge on my own freedoms. I choose to live rationally and refuse to let my religion, dogma or anything else color my views. I am a Libertarian
I'd add, 'as long as it does not impinge on my own freedoms or anyone elses'

Indoctrination of children being an example.
That was implied. Right wingers try to force their religious beliefs on other people via the government and lefties try to do the same thing on whatever cause is the flavor of the month They're both equally wrong.
"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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sydney wrote:

But with good old fashion socialism, the banks wouldn't have had the freedom to fuck up like that, all their actions would be publicly viewable.
Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence
So what?

That means absolutely nothing. The complexity of the complete finances of multi-national banks means it would take years of studying their books to ensure they're not fucking up, by which time it would be too late.

Without (sufficient) dedicated public regulation this sort of thing is bound to happen. Risks often equate to high profits and high bonuses, which drive bankers to take greater risks, which puts the banks at greater risk - with all those risks driven by the incentive of higher profits in an enormous market something was bound to go horribly wrong at some point. That's why capitalist economic models are prone to the whole boom and bust cycle thing, plenty of historic precedent.
I'll take the boom and bust cycle over the flatline of the alternative
"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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

That was implied. Right wingers try to force their religious beliefs on other people via the government and lefties try to do the same thing on whatever cause is the flavor of the month  They're both equally wrong.
But you only said my freedom, implying you'd sit back and watch someone else lose theirs.
Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence
Problem is no-one doing the viewing has the power to do anything about it, apart from govt.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-07 16:59:50)

Fuck Israel
Bevo
Nah
+718|6760|Austin, Texas
https://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.00&soc=-4.46

3.00/-4.46

ed: looks like im fairly aligned with johngatlt

Last edited by Bevo (2009-10-07 17:12:30)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6820|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence
So what?

That means absolutely nothing. The complexity of the complete finances of multi-national banks means it would take years of studying their books to ensure they're not fucking up, by which time it would be too late.

Without (sufficient) dedicated public regulation this sort of thing is bound to happen. Risks often equate to high profits and high bonuses, which drive bankers to take greater risks, which puts the banks at greater risk - with all those risks driven by the incentive of higher profits in an enormous market something was bound to go horribly wrong at some point. That's why capitalist economic models are prone to the whole boom and bust cycle thing, plenty of historic precedent.
I'll take the boom and bust cycle over the flatline of the alternative
It's not an alternative...

Obviously the best system is a blend of socialism and capitalism (which is why virtually every sensible country has adopted a system along those lines). I just don't think anywhere is currently doing it quite right. There's a few places around Europe that are doing pretty well on that balance.

Nice job on completely avoiding the original point about their finances being available to the public....

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-10-07 17:01:39)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6820|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yeah, ok. The bank is publicly traded, yes? It's books are then viewable. Next time do your due diligence
Problem is no-one doing the viewing has the power to do anything about it, apart from govt.
More importantly, no one but the bankers can understand the books.....
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
And very few of them understand how the whole system is interconnected.
Not that they give a shit as long as their bonuses keep rolling in and when it crashes they keep their capital.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-07 17:06:16)

Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

It's not an alternative...

Obviously the best system is a blend of socialism and capitalism (which is why virtually every sensible country has adopted a system along those lines). I just don't think anywhere is currently doing it quite right. There's a few places around Europe that are doing pretty well on that balance.

Nice job on completely avoiding the original point about their finances being available to the public....
It is absolutely an either/or kind of thing. Mixed economies are bastard stepchildren and nothing good comes of them.

As soon as you attach socialist programs into a free market environment it acts as a giant anchor to productivity, efficiency and desire. You end up with the free market side pulling an ever increasing load behind it.

Basically what Social Democrats figured out was that Socialism itself lacks a 'carrot on a stick' to motivate people. They realized the only tool they had, guilt, was easily overcome by the human 'sins' (for lack of a better word) of greed, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. How do you keep a glutton from eating more than his share? Punish him? How do you keep a greedy man from taking more than his share? Punish him? Lots of punishment going around. So what they've strived to do is harness those 'sins' to pull the cart of socialism for them. They work to enslave the labor of some for the 'common good'. The problem with all of this is that you end up with less and less people willing to work. They see more personal benefit from living off of government welfare and 'enjoying themselves' than in seeking work. You end up with more and more people being carried by less and less people. It's a system that can not last.

You look at those European countries and see a near Utopia where the two have come together in harmony. I see high unemployment rates, high crime rates, high taxation, almost zero innovation and very little if any people bothering to form new companies to get ahead. What's the point when you'll just pay more taxes? Let someone else start the business and provide jobs. The worst part is that those being pulled along don't even care that they've enslaved those with more money than themselves. Somehow you're entitled to the fruits of their labor just because you were born. What happens when they throw up their hands and decide they've had enough? What happens when they, the producers decide to go on strike instead of some pissant laborer who's more than willing to kidnap his boss because he doesn't want to lose his job. Some great system you've got over there.

I respect Socialists for their beliefs. I definitely respect those who believe in the free market. Who I have zero respect for are people who believe that a mixed economy is a real solution. Mixed economies are doomed from the very start because they take the worst aspects of both sides and strive to make them work together.

This is long and rambling, it's late, I'm tired, but I hope I got some semblance of my point across.
"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
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5825

Ugh haven't done one of these in awhile, give me a sec.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6392|what

Ten days later...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5825

https://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.00&soc=0.67
Moderate, leaning conservative.
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6619|MN
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25206/pcgraphpng.png
Slightly more "Right" than Macbeth!
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5825

LividBovine wrote:

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25206/pcgraphpng.png
Slightly more "Right" than Macbeth!
Yeah more to the right...OF HITLER!

Not saying I'm Hitler I'm saying Hitler was pretty economically moderate.

Last edited by Macbeth (2009-10-07 21:01:57)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/25206/pcgraphpng.png
Slightly more "Right" than Macbeth!
Yeah more to the right...OF HITLER!
Dude, Hitler was pretty much true north on the compass
"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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Yeah more to the right...OF HITLER!

Not saying I'm Hitler I'm saying Hitler was pretty economically moderate.
It was funny, earlier in the thread one of the Euros tried to show what he thought lowings compass would look like. So he answered all the questions in a way that he thought would create the most evil compass reading. He ended up at like 0,9. Apparently to that guy an economic conservative was the worst you could be
"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
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6388|'straya
https://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.75&soc=-2.72

I'd say thats reasonably accurate.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard