Where do you sit on the Political Compass? (1 Viewer)

[Slidey]

Represent'n teh authoritarian right?

Die horribly.

 

[Ziva]

That kind of proves what he was saying.
China has been freeing up its markets in recent times (still not remotely a completely free market though obviously) and as such they have seen growth, and with that an increase in jobs. Shortages in labour have been the result of government interference i.e. not having a free market.

And as more jobs have become available, incomes have increased and as the video said, "enterprises are now competing with each other for workers" and workers can "afford to be choosy" in terms of employment options.

The idea that capitalism increases living standards across the world is no longer a debatable ideology, it's a proven fact. There is no better way to increase living standards holistically then by free market capitalism.

The whole idea that the gap is significantly wide, and that the poverty line is decreasing to slow, inaccurately gives people they idea that capitalism is not the best way to allocate resources. You then have Mr Gates you comes out and creates this new idea "creative capitalism." He correctly believes that capitalism is the greatest ideology to reducing poverty, he however argues that the poverty is decreasing at a rate that is too slow. He believes their should be incentives put in place to which enhance the self-motivational factors which would help to increase private sector initiatives that battle poverty (because the private sector is larger and more efficient)

I believe that profit maximisation should (or increasing shareholder value) be the only goal for the firm. When you try to mix up for-profit and non-for-profit with the new L3C companies, things can become a little complicated. Providing poor governments with large sumps of money will not do the local economy any good because it does not increase productivity, and the main reason they are in poverty is due to economic mismanagement and corruption. Providing vaccines to the poor at lower than market rate prices (their are low variable costs for pharmaceutical manufacturers and the developed economies bear the fixed costs that are associated with much of the original R&D) may not be the optimal solution either, what if they want to do something else with the money? Maybe their family needs water, and food. Furthermore, providing people with jobs (contrary to the anti-sweatshop movement debacle) is at this time, one of the best ways to increase economic prosperity and is PROFIT MAXIMISING.

It is good that the man that is one of the wealthiest capitalists does indeed wish to devote some of his resources to the needy. This is hardly a bad thing. The thing is when you think of Microsoft and Mr Gates you are unlikely to think of great philanthropist, you are more likely to think of ruthless competitor or money. Gates acquired his wealth by entrepreneurial innovation and ruthless business practices that allowed Microsoft to monopolise the market, and derive sizable profits. It is for these reasons which has allowed him to invest in other initiatives through his and his wives foundation. Profit maximisation has only made the world what it is today, making the lives of a higher majority of the world's population live a better live. Sure the very poor of Africa might not yet be able to afford a computer, but microsoft is looking at ways of getting into the market (traditionally markets tend to appease the rich and not the poor - by new pay as you go computers [Prahalad from the Harvard business school was discussing this if you can look it up]).

So when Bill Gates asked the crowd at the World Economic Convention in Davos to indulge in these creative capitalism for reasons of "recognition". You sort of get the feeling of, do as I say, not what I did.

bahaha taco you're fuckin nuts


seriously though America's comparatively low life expectancy has nothing to do with healthcare. Americans are far more likely to die from accidental death than most places, and when you take these factors into account it actually has a rather high life expectancy

America use to have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe not by absolute coverage, but those who could afford it (and given the economic incentive that is capitalism), the ones that actually deserved it could afford the best healthcare in the world would get it - and quicker.

If you have the money, you deserve the right to have the greatest healthcare made available to you.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. If you can't, you are of no good to society, you are no good alive.

OH LOOK IM FUCKING POOR AND DONT CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY BUT YOU KNOW WHAT ILL STILL SMOKE, AND DRINK EXCESSIVELY AND WASTE MORE OF THE PEOPLES WHO PAY FOR ITS MONEY (THE RICH, OH BUT THEY DONT NEED ALL THAT MONEY!!!).

Socialising healthcare was one of the worst things Obama has done, and goes against many of the liberties that America was founded on.

 

[Elliot220]

Die horribly.

Somebody votes for the Greens.

I answered them all with complete honesty, my dot is right between the Liberals and Nationals; so I'd assume my position on that compass is pretty damn mainstream.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Somebody votes for the Greens.

I answered them all with complete honesty, my dot is right between the Liberals and Nationals; so I'd assume my position on that compass is pretty damn mainstream.

We need the second amendment so we can shoot power trippin' cunts like you who think that because their views are mainstream, they have a right to impose them on everyone.

 

[Elliot220]

We need the second amendment so we can shoot power trippin' cunts like you who think that because their views are mainstream, they have a right to impose them on everyone.

Huh? I'm imposing my views?

All I did was post my result. Does that mean everybody in this thread is imposing their views on everyone?

 

[SylviaB]

America use to have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe not by absolute coverage, but those who could afford it (and given the economic incentive that is capitalism), the ones that actually deserved it could afford the best healthcare in the world would get it - and quicker.

I still think America has the best quality of healthcare, they have better survivability of most cancers etc, better patient to equipment rations (e.g. MRIs) and so on. The Canadian Prime minister apparently doesn't trust his own system enough to have surgery there and instead flew to America for it.

Taxation is extortion and as such I am whole-heartedly opposed to taxpayer-funded government health systems. I mean, in the absence of a socialised healthcare system I would most likely donate my money/time to some charity to help out, but force me to do it and thats just fucking criminal in my books.
However, saying this makes statists even more against you because you're a "greedy exploitative capitalist pig blah blah" and you get nowhere.
And this is why its extremely important to note that the poor were actually better off on a free market., for te reason in the link, and for just dozens and dozens of other reasons (artificial restriction of supply of doctors, can't sell insurance between states etc)
As long as they continue to maintain their ignorance of this, that they would be better off with a free market in healthcare AND in everything else, they deserve to be without healthcare etc as far as I'm concerned. It's just a shame that the productive people have to foot the bill for the government's waste as a result.

 

[Lolsmith]

Huh? I'm imposing my views?

All I did was post my result. Does that mean everybody in this thread is imposing their views on everyone?

Do you even know what authoritarian means

 

[SylviaB]

anyone who supports the state necessarily imposes his views on others

 

[Elliot220]

Oh, I get it now.

Some level of views being imposed on the public is necessary; that is the essence of law and authority, afterall. The view that murder is bad is imposed on the public; thus it is illegal to commit muder. No opinions or views being imposed would essentially be anarchism.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

I believe that profit maximisation should (or increasing shareholder value) be the only goal for the firm.

What the fuck. At what expense? Profit maximisation is the only goal for not-for-profit companies and the horrible state of the planet and humanity reflects this. If for profit business should exist, which I believe shouldn't, its goal should be working towards a brighter future for the world's citizens, however, this cannot happen.

and the main reason they are in poverty is due to economic mismanagement and corruption.

I disagree. The main reason they are in poverty is foreign states imposing their will upon them. Granted though, economic mismanagement and corruption are huge factors.

...with jobs (contrary to the anti-sweatshop movement debacle) is at this time, one of the best ways to increase economic prosperity and is PROFIT MAXIMISING.

That's a terrible, terrible thing to say. So you're arguing that sweatshops are overall beneficial because they provide the poor with an awful, exploitative job and disproportionately provide profit to their masters?

Profit maximisation has only made the world what it is today, making the lives of a higher majority of the world's population live a better live. Sure the very poor of Africa might not yet be able to afford a computer, but microsoft is looking at ways of getting into the market (traditionally markets tend to appease the rich and not the poor - by new pay as you go computers [Prahalad from the Harvard business school was discussing this if you can look it up]).

I agree with the first part 'Profit maximisation has only made the world what it is today' but I strongly disagree with this: ' making the lives of a higher majority of the world's population live a better live.' Extreme poverty and globalisation/capitalism go hand in hand. The profit motive is responsible for almost all of the world's problems, directly or indirectly. Higher standards of living come from industrialisation and mass production, not solely through capitalism. While it is certainly true that capitalism has made a few people filthy rich, and increased living standards for millions, it is also the prime reason that billions are in poverty and that the world is a shithole.

America use to have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe not by absolute coverage, but those who could afford it (and given the economic incentive that is capitalism), the ones that actually deserved it could afford the best healthcare in the world would get it - and quicker.

If you have the money, you deserve the right to have the greatest healthcare made available to you.

Flat out bullshit. Everybody is born different but equal and by virtue of their humanity everybody deserves equally good healthcare. Being able to manipulate money should not entitle you to put your life ahead of others. You have made the fundamental mistake of comparing personal wealth with societal/human value. There are people on below average wage that are beneficial to society, and there are people with far higher incomes than others who are actually detrimental to the earth itself.

OH LOOK IM FUCKING POOR AND DONT CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY BUT YOU KNOW WHAT ILL STILL SMOKE, AND DRINK EXCESSIVELY AND WASTE MORE OF THE PEOPLES WHO PAY FOR ITS MONEY (THE RICH, OH BUT THEY DONT NEED ALL THAT MONEY!!!).

Poor people are poor because of a lack of opportunity or a lack of ability to appease the invisible hand of the market. Poor people smoke and drink because their lives are shit, and it helps them cope. The rich pay fuck all tax, thanks to various loopholes and their connections with the state.

Somehow, you're under the idea that the rich actually produce things that are beneficial. They don't. People who work, volunteer[i/] and give to charity are the benefactors of society, people that actually contribute instead of dumping oil into an ocean or extorting a developing country out of its natural resources. You sir, make me sick.

 

[Elliot220]

Poor people are poor because of a lack of opportunity or a lack of ability to appease the invisible hand of the market.

I live in Western Sydney. The majority of poor people I've come across are simply lazy and apathetic. Even worse, their children have a sense of entitlement; expecting the government to prodivde for them in the absence of their useless parents.
There is a world of opportunity here, the problem isn't lack of opportunity; the problem is a lack of willingness to exploit the opportunity for one's own well-being.

Somehow, you're under the idea that the rich actually produce things that are beneficial.

Well, the rich tend to be the ones hiring people and creating jobs.

Let's not be so fast to jump on the Marxist bandwagon, that all poor people are victims of the villainous upper class who don't deserve their wealth.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

I live in Western Sydney. The majority of poor people I've come across are simply lazy and apathetic. Even worse, their children have a sense of entitlement; expecting the government to prodivde for them in the absence of their useless parents.
There is a world of opportunity here, the problem isn't lack of opportunity; the problem is a lack of willingness to exploit the opportunity for one's own well-being.

I live in Western Melbourne. The majority of poor people I've come across are simply worn down, depressed and feel hopeless in a system that has no concern for them. Even worse, the government doesn't fund schools very well and their children end up with a lower quality education and place less importance on a good education.
There is a world of opportunity if you come from a middle or upper middle class family; the problem is that thanks to the economic injustices of capitalism, not everybody does.

Well, the rich tend to be the ones hiring people and creating jobs.

Let's not be so fast to jump on the Marxist bandwagon, that all poor people are victims of the villainous upper class who don't deserve their wealth.

'Creating jobs' is largely a capitalist phenomenon. You don't need somebody else to provide you with labour for that labour to become beneficial. There are nigh infinite possibilities to do labour that is beneficial, but this is restricted by the capitalist class. I hope you see what I mean here. Wage labour is a capitalist phenomenon.

I would say that most poor people are victims of the villainous upper class, who oftentimes are villains and certainly don't deserve their wealth.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Huh? I'm imposing my views?

All I did was post my result. Does that mean everybody in this thread is imposing their views on everyone?

Haha. You make a fair point.

I'm sorry, its just as a libertarian I'm naturally eager to shoot people.

 

[SylviaB]

I'm sorry, its just as a libertarian I'm naturally eager to shoot people.

m8

nice PR there lol

 

[SylviaB]

taco you've never read an economics book in your life so just shut the fuck up already

you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

wait let me guess economics is just a way for the rich to justify their exploitation amirite??

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

m8

nice PR there lol

well to be fair, libertarians mainly just want to shoot poor people.

 

[_Duck_]

Taco, you are wrong. Socialism has been shown time and time again to simply not work. We need some incentive to work and this drive benefits society as a whole. Firms seeking to maximise profits are acting in the best interests of society because the more profit they make the larger they can grow, creating more employment and more production hence higher standard of living. On the subject of poor people, in Australia we have free public education up to the secondary level and heavily subsidised tertiary education available to EVERYONE in the form of HECS. Yes, that means everyone in Australia has the opportunity for higher level education but they need to want it and to work for it. Plenty of public school graduates have gone to higher level education (university, tafe) or an apprenticeship and thus it is possible for every single child in Australia to obtain a reasonable income (and a standard of living far higher than most of the world.) Those who fail to do so are lazy and do not deserve such a standard of living.

EDIT: I got to the second question of the second page of the test before aborting it. "It is more important to control inflation than to control unemployment". The two are far to linked for this to be an agree/disagree answer. The REASON we control inflation is to benefit living standards and reduce unemployment. The test was surely written by someone without a glimpse of understanding of basic economics.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

taco you've never read an economics book in your life so just shut the fuck up already

you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

wait let me guess economics is just a way for the rich to justify their exploitation amirite??

Untrue.

Taco, you are wrong. Socialism has been shown time and time again to simply not work. We need some incentive to work and this drive benefits society as a whole.

Capitalism has only existed for around 200 years. If profit is the only incentive to work, how did we get things done prior to the profit motive?

Firms seeking to maximise profits are acting in the best interests of society because the more profit they make the larger they can grow, creating more employment and more production hence higher standard of living.

This is true to a point. Firms seeking to maximise profits also cause considerable harm to society. The profit motive has resulted in a higher standard of living for some, and poverty and death for others.

On the subject of poor people, in Australia we have free public education up to the secondary level and heavily subsidised tertiary education available to EVERYONE in the form of HECS. Yes, that means everyone in Australia has the opportunity for higher level education but they need to want it and to work for it. Plenty of public school graduates have gone to higher level education (university, tafe) or an apprenticeship and thus it is possible for every single child in Australia to obtain a reasonable income (and a standard of living far higher than most of the world.) Those who fail to do so are lazy and do not deserve such a standard of living.

It isn't that simple. Not all young people know the value of a good education and the environment that one is brought up in can be detrimental to all facets of their lives. It's a vicious cycle that stifles social mobility.

 

[SylviaB]

Untrue.

marx doesn't count

 

[_Duck_]

Capitalism has only existed for around 200 years. If profit is the only incentive to work, how did we get things done prior to the profit motive?

Capitalism has existed for longer than 200 years, but ignoring that i ask you which decades have brought about greatest technological advancements and improvements in material living standards?

This is true to a point. Firms seeking to maximise profits also cause considerable harm to society. The profit motive has resulted in a higher standard of living for some, and poverty and death for others.

Relative poverty =/= poverty. Do you see people dying as you walk the streets of Australian cities? The poor in Australia and USA live in better conditions than citizens of Soviet Russia.

It isn't that simple. Not all young people know the value of a good education and the environment that one is brought up in can be detrimental to all facets of their lives. It's a vicious cycle that stifles social mobility.

At some point we have to stop holding hands. If these people choose not to want an education then it cannot be forced upon them and they will reap what they have sowed. Perhaps if mummy and daddy weren't happily living off centrelink Jonny would understand that he needs to get a job when he grows up, because at the moment it seems optional.