Political persuasion poll *again* [Archive]

View Full Version : Political persuasion poll *again*

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 22:00

Well, here we go again.

What is your *general* political persuasion?

Economically right, socially right: You believe that government should stay out of your wallet as much as possible. You also believe that it is the government's responsibility to establish social values. Examples: George W. Bush. Christian Conservatives.

Economically right, socially left: You believe that government should stay out of your wallet as much as possible. You also believe that the government has no business establishing social values. Examples: Howard Stern. Libertarians.

Economically left, socially left: You believe that it is the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth to those with less. You also believe that the government has no business establishing social values. Examples: Michael Moore. Democrats

Economically left, socially right: You believe that it is the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth to those with less. You also believe that it is the government's responsibility to establish social values. Examples: Stalin. Communists.

Radier

08-06-2005, 22:06

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 22:10

JAG

08-06-2005, 22:30

I am a liberal socialist, which in effect means I am socially and economically of the left, I would assume.

Reverend Joe

08-06-2005, 22:32

Social issues have no bearing on my political leaning. Frankly, I can't understand why people care so much about establishing social sides, because (at least in my opinion) an impending economic crisis or a war is just a little more important than whether or not we should let people indulge in sodomy.

To answer your question a little more precisely than I did on the poll, I am economically left, and socially who-gives-a-goddamn.

Strike For The South

08-06-2005, 22:34

I put right for both I believe the goverment should set some moral standards but not many And yes no goverment handouts and low taxes

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 22:36

Im economically right because i think our industry should be competitive.
Socially im left because i think we should also take care of our less fortunates.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 22:41

Im economically right because i think our industry should be competitive.
Socially im left because i think we should also take care of our less fortunates.

No see. You seem to be confused my friend. You are either for the business owner or for the slave, er.. I mean... "employee".

By giving handouts to crackwhores and derelicts, we must tax those who work hard. This in turn means that they are less competitive. You identified two contrasting economic issues and then supported both. :dizzy2:

JAG

08-06-2005, 22:48

No see. You seem to be confused my friend. You are either for the business owner or for the slave, er.. I mean... "employee".

By giving handouts to crackwhores and derelicts, we must tax those who work hard. This in turn means that they are less competitive. You identified two contrasting economic issues and then supported both. :dizzy2:

You seem to think the situation so clear cut and simplistic. It is not.

Much like your descriptions of your poll options, they are very simplistic when it isn't like that.

To think that because a government wants to give every hard working person a decent, fair and reflective wage means business cannot be competitive, then you are barmy.

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 22:50

You seem to think the situation so clear cut and simplistic. It is not.

Much like your descriptions of your poll options, they are very simplistic when it isn't like that.

To think that because a government wants to give every hard working person a decent, fair and reflective wage means business cannot be competitive, then you are barmy.

You should be paid according to your skill, talent, and performance.

Should we pay a fast-food worker the same as an Executive?

JAG

08-06-2005, 22:59

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 23:07

It depends what, where and how effective both the fast food worker and executive is.

But again you are thinking far too sterotypically simple. I do not pretend that people will be paid the same, notice how I stated that I believe people should get a fair and decent wage, not equal wages.

Well then there you go. Everything is working out just fine. The unskilled wretches are being paid for their easily replaceable menial labor. Meanwhile, the hard working upper class are getting what they deserve for generations of committed performance.

And the vast majority of us in the middle can all find a decent living wage by making ourselves more valuable as assets: either through performance, talent, or education and skills.

I'm happy to announce that we have come to an agreement. ~:cheers:

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 23:13

Well then there you go. Everything is working out just fine. The unskilled wretches are being paid for their easily replaceable menial labor. Meanwhile, the hard working upper class are getting what they deserve for generations of committed performance.

And the vast majority of us in the middle can all find a decent living wage by making ourselves more valuable as assets: either through performance, talent, or education and skills.

I'm happy to announce that we have come to an agreement. ~:cheers:

This is pretty much what i stated before.So my friend it seems if we are both pretty confused. ~;)

JAG

08-06-2005, 23:14

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 23:17

This is pretty much what i stated before.So my friend it seems if we are both pretty confused. ~;)

Not at all. Government should stay the hell out of as much as possible. If you want something, then earn it. Nobody should get a leg up from the government just for squirting out of a birth canal. I care about my own children, not the children of tyquandra-laquisha the crackwhore.

And that is what the left does, economically. Let's take your money away from you and give it to someone who didn't work his butt off to earn it.

Strike For The South

08-06-2005, 23:19

Not at all. Government should stay the hell out of as much as possible. If you want something, then earn it. Nobody should get a leg up from the government just for squirting out of a birth canal. I care about my own children, not the children of tyquandra-laquisha the crackwhore.

And that is what the left does, economically. Let's take your money away from you and give it to someone who didn't work his butt off to earn it.

Ill 2nd that ~:cheers:

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 23:22

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 23:24

Sigh - yes, of course we have come to agreement.

However yet again, I have to comment on how simple minded you are being when approaching issues, things are far more complex than you seem to realise / want to realise.

Anyway, I am glad - as we are seemingly agreed on everything economical - that you think minimum wages, 90% top rates of tax, increased trade union strength and redistribution of income are great ideas. I never met a so called Conservative who has had such views, you Divinus Arma, are one of a kind.

And likewise I am glad that you believe minimum wages should be suppressed as much as possible; that the lazy shouldn't catch a break for breathing; that the wealthy can redistribute their wealth through investments, business ownership, and purchases rather than taxes; and that overpaid labor unions interfere with the flexibility that is critical to remain competitive in a global economy where barriers to market entry have disappeared in many industries.

Jag, you aren't so bad for a socialist after all, you old stinker you. ~:cheers:

JAG

08-06-2005, 23:24

Divinus Arma

08-06-2005, 23:26

You should study about Scandinavian economys.We pay high taxes and our government gives some of it to "Crack Mothers" and their babies.But we are still not poorest of countries.My personal tax percent is almost 40%,so i dont support this kind of system because im dependant on it. :bow:

That sucks. Here, if I work really really hard, I will actually get a better life for my family.

What did Churchill say? "The flaw of capitalism is inequal wealth. The flaw of communism is the equal distribution of misery." Sounds about right.

JAG

08-06-2005, 23:27

Kagemusha

08-06-2005, 23:31

That sucks. Here, if I work really really hard, I will actually get a better life for my family.

What did Churchill say? "The flaw of capitalism is inequal wealth. The flaw of communism is the equal distribution of misery." Sounds about right.

As i stated we are not poor.And not Communist we Finns arent the number one fans of communism.But i cant never convince you about that ,can i?

Sasaki Kojiro

08-06-2005, 23:51

Economically gah and socially left.

Marcellus

08-07-2005, 00:31

From the options I would have to say that I am on the left, both economically and socially.

Proletariat

08-07-2005, 01:03

As i stated we are not poor.And not Communist we Finns arent the number one fans of communism.But i cant never convince you about that ,can i?

Do you know why your country isn't poor?

Kagemusha

08-07-2005, 01:46

Do you know why your country isn't poor?

The main historical reason would be that many of our ancestors died protecting this country from Soviet Unions attack.Otherwise our state would be the same as ex Eastern block countries whose economys was destroyd by communism.Another one was that after WWII Finland had to build up huge industry to pay enermous War compensations to Soviet Union.The Marshall aid helped us also,like many other European Countries.Third reason would be,thanks to the babyboomer generation that created a government funded education system,what allowed anyones kids to have a good education.That was essential to create businesses like Nokia or Kone and our highly developed forest industry.
Since the forests are our only natural resources we have to put effort on our human resources. :bow:

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 05:20

And likewise I am glad that you believe minimum wages should be suppressed as much as possible; that the lazy shouldn't catch a break for breathing; that the wealthy can redistribute their wealth through investments, business ownership, and purchases rather than taxes; and that overpaid labor unions interfere with the flexibility that is critical to remain competitive in a global economy where barriers to market entry have disappeared in many industries.

Whoa... wait... is this a joke?! I really, REALLY hope you aren't that numb to everything and everyone around you. Otherwise you might be living inside a wall. If you have ever worked a goddamn day of manual labor in your life, and heard about all the bulls**t that goes up top to prevent "redistribution" of wealth, you will realise how little bearing your statements have on reality.

To begin: very few people work more than others. The only lazy people I know of are the rich, and the unemployed who can't get a job- and they are a VERY tiny minority. When it comes to earning your money, it is the people at the top who are the worst at taking money they don't deserve.

Here are a few examples, from the construction company I have been working my last two summers at:

The head of the electric sub-contractor has, on multiple occasions, signed into work, then promptly taken the day off to go golfing. It happened so many times that finally one of his head electricians lost his patience, and started signing him out after he left. Taking days off to golf is common practice amongst the heads of both the main construction contractor and their sub-contractors.

There were no raises for two years running at the main company. However, there was no evidence that profits were falling; the VP's just wanted more cash for their salaries.

The foreman on the crew I have been on was hired from the outside. He was not required to go through the year-long Foreman's school, or take the test. He is entirely incompetent; he does not lead the jobs he is on at all, he does very little work, he comes in late and leaves early every day, the leadman has to bail him out every time he does a serious job, and he has blown his drug test twice. Yet as much as the superintendant hates him, he cannot fire him because one of the VP's- the truly hated one- hired him on as a favor to one of the heads of the Facilities Planning department (the people who give out the construction jobs) at the location the company has been working on for years.

On the last job I was on, the leadman (who was in charge of the job) was told that he was running behind, because he was going to finish a week behind when the job was expected to be done. However, the job was still finished a month ahead of schedule- and the only reason the VP was upset was because the earlier the job got done, the more overpay he pocketed- and I say he, and not the company, because the money goes right into the pockets of the two VP's and the president.

So, what were you saying about "working for your money"? Truth be told, if people were really paid what they deserved, almost everyone who is rich right now would be paupers.

Again, if what you were saying was a joke, I apologise.

Redleg

08-07-2005, 05:29

Economically right - given your definations of social I have to go with the social right. The government has the obligation to establish laws to regulate social behaviors - Those laws need to have some sort of basis in which to draw authority from. I would not say I am hard right on this aspect - but definetly right of center.

Red Harvest

08-07-2005, 05:33

Should we pay a fast-food worker the same as an Executive?

Certainly not, most execs are vastly overpaid for what they actually do and for the actual impact they have on the company performance, while fast food workers are not. Which one is more valuable to me...probably the fast food worker, the execs have been ripping me off both as an employee and stockholder. If we paid execs according to performance many would owe US money instead.

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:14

Certainly not, most execs are vastly overpaid for what they actually do and for the actual impact they have on the company performance, while fast food workers are not. Which one is more valuable to me...probably the fast food worker, the execs have been ripping me off both as an employee and stockholder. If we paid execs according to performance many would owe US money instead.

Allow me to provide you with the glorious benefit of my superior incredible-like intellect and vastly more greaterist experience.

I was once a Democrat... Yes, 'tis true. I voted for Al Gore and distrusted the Republicans like any true Democrat would. The worker should hold more power, the executive is worthless... Oh evil government...

But then I awoke from the darkness of ignorance.

I realized a basic concept of economics: If you have more, then you will spend more. And thus the economy grows. This little seed grew into the tree 'tis now.

But after obtaining my education in Business.... I realize just how foolish I was. And as a consequence, how foolish the left is.

But ah, how glorious is truth! Now the Democrats are splintered into infighting fragments: The religious blacks hate the abortionists. The labor unions hate the illegal immigrants. The Police unions hate the drug users. The AFl-CIO is splitting apart. The Dems haven't controlled the legislative branch in a generation. The anti-military wing is getting branded as anti-national security. It turns out that Kerry had a lower GPA than Bush, (who attended Yale and Harvard). Fox News is dominating the cable news networks.

Ah yes, my lefty friends, you shall see the end up your pitiful little social club. Hillary is your lead figure and she is as polarizing and terrifying to the left as to the right! We have countless fine Governors and Legislators ready to step into the next presidency, as well as Powell, McCain, Rice, and many other brilliant figures that defy the Democrats marketing as the party for minorities. We are gaining fast with hispanics, mexicans, and blacks. And your DNC chairman is a screaming loon! (we're going to Iowa, and Georgia, and California, and Ohio, yeeearghrrrraaaah!!!!)

You see, my lefty friends, the left has nothing anymore but fragments of broken history and shredded dreams. You still cling to the days of old where "the new deal" was king and unions owned the polls. What do Democrats stand for now, hmm? What? Go to their website. http://www.democrats.org/ The 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act? Ther 2005 Hispanic Summit? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So do I need to win your approval? No. Am I just pissing you off and failing to really communicate anything that will help you see the light? Yep.

The fact is, the left will fail because its strength lies in the weakness of others. They are a party of victims moaning how the world has wronged them and that others must make it right. You are the party of the weak.

The right empowers people to forge their own destinies in this world. Where the left says, "Let us help you", the right says, "Let us help you to help yourself". It is this strength that inspires, that demands the best from its people, and that survives!

That's right. I went from a lowly Democrat making 12k a year, to buying my first home at 21 years old and my second at 23. I work 60 hours a week and carry 18 credits of school so that I can provide a better life for my family. I earned it. I don't need a frvkin handout! And nobody does. Get a job. And a second one. And then go to school and make yourself an asset to society. Quit looking for people to carry your burden. Lazy swine. :coffeenews:

Proletariat

08-07-2005, 06:20

The sooner you all realize that Divinus has more brains stuck between his teeth than you all have period, the better (for your pride, anyhow).

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 06:30

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:32

Whoa... wait... is this a joke?! I really, REALLY hope you aren't that numb to everything and everyone around you. Otherwise you might be living inside a wall. If you have ever worked a goddamn day of manual labor in your life, and heard about all the bulls**t that goes up top to prevent "redistribution" of wealth, you will realise how little bearing your statements have on reality.

To begin: very few people work more than others. The only lazy people I know of are the rich, and the unemployed who can't get a job- and they are a VERY tiny minority. When it comes to earning your money, it is the people at the top who are the worst at taking money they don't deserve.

Here are a few examples, from the construction company I have been working my last two summers at:

The head of the electric sub-contractor has, on multiple occasions, signed into work, then promptly taken the day off to go golfing. It happened so many times that finally one of his head electricians lost his patience, and started signing him out after he left. Taking days off to golf is common practice amongst the heads of both the main construction contractor and their sub-contractors.

There were no raises for two years running at the main company. However, there was no evidence that profits were falling; the VP's just wanted more cash for their salaries.

The foreman on the crew I have been on was hired from the outside. He was not required to go through the year-long Foreman's school, or take the test. He is entirely incompetent; he does not lead the jobs he is on at all, he does very little work, he comes in late and leaves early every day, the leadman has to bail him out every time he does a serious job, and he has blown his drug test twice. Yet as much as the superintendant hates him, he cannot fire him because one of the VP's- the truly hated one- hired him on as a favor to one of the heads of the Facilities Planning department (the people who give out the construction jobs) at the location the company has been working on for years.

On the last job I was on, the leadman (who was in charge of the job) was told that he was running behind, because he was going to finish a week behind when the job was expected to be done. However, the job was still finished a month ahead of schedule- and the only reason the VP was upset was because the earlier the job got done, the more overpay he pocketed- and I say he, and not the company, because the money goes right into the pockets of the two VP's and the president.

So, what were you saying about "working for your money"? Truth be told, if people were really paid what they deserved, almost everyone who is rich right now would be paupers.

Again, if what you were saying was a joke, I apologise.

'Twas not a joke my tenderized friend. And me thinks that 'tis YOU, inside the world of the numb.

I worked two jobs and picked frickin cans out of the complex trash can just to make ends meet. I am not exagerating when I say I got up before dark and walked five miles to my job as a security guard (since busses did not run that early). Then I was lucky enough to catch the bus back. When I got home, I would catch a nap for two hours. Then I would go to my second job waiting tables. And I had to walk 2 miles to that job and back, unless I was lucky enough to have my girlfriend pick me up.

So I know what a piece of crap it is to be on one of the bottom rungs in society. But you press on. And you do what you can to make a change in your life for the better. For me it was the military, something I always wanted to do anyway. So then I went from that to be a freakin Private in the hardest branch of service the US has to offer. And you know what I made in '99? Take a look for yourself: http://www.dod.mil/dfas/money/milpay/priorpay/

That's right, I made less. And had the good fortune to have a rack with some blankets. And a Sergeant screaming his lungs off at me.

My point is this, oh bloody flesed wad, I worked to have the opportunities I have today. I sacrificed. I have vision, and ability, and drive. And if you have that too, then you don't have to work for a retard. You can work for yourself or be the boss and do a better job.

By the way, all those people that the Dems love to tax? You know, people making over 100k a year? Most of them are small business owners. Men and women who busted there butts to be where thay are and have what they have.

So ya. I'm pretty sick of the whole whiney little victim give-me-a-handout thing.

Get an education my friend. And the people with kids... I guess you should have waited or used birth control HUH?

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:34

The sooner you all realize that Divinus has more brains stuck between his teeth than you all have period, the better (for your pride, anyhow).

:bow:

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 06:42

There is a real reason that Corporate heads and corporations are poorly taxed. Have you seen what tax lawyers can do with the current, lax tax system? They LACERATE their client's taxes.

Anyway, we have obviously have had different experiences. There is no way we will be able to agree on anything at this point, so I am just going to call it a day and wander off elsewhere. I thank you for clarifying that you have had experience with the underbelly, but I still fail to see how it did not make a socilaist out of you.

Oh, and just for clarification, I am named after a character on a late-night cartoon called "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". It is on midnight, Monday through Wednesday, on Adult Swim (that's late night cartoon network, and it is called Adult Swim for a reason; there's some horrific s**t on that network). Anyway, take a looksee if you wish.

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:43

He may be smart, but he sounds like a facist. If he is truly the future, then someone please kill me... or him... either way is fine, just as long as I don't have to see America become a facist state.

Take notice that I personally selected "economically right and socially left".

I am the furthest thing from fascist that one could be. I will quickly explain:

What is THE TRUE soul of the Republican party? Liberty, small government, STATES RIGHTS!!!!!

Do you want power in the hands of the few in Washington, where someone from California tells someone in Iowa how to live?! NO!!! And they have little right to, according to the enumerated powers of the constitution! The left has tricked all of us!!! They suck onto the ignorant and feed hyperbole and conjecture into your minds. And what is worse, they prey upon the most human components of our soul: HOPE. They sell lies and federal power disguised as hope and compassion. They want to enslave you and take away your power to rule yourself! They believe that you are unable to help yourself! They believe that you are incompetent! They want you to give your power and freedoms away so that they may make the decisions for you. They are the fascists my friend. It is them who are the enemy and you are blind to it. I know because I was there!

I believed their lies! I believed that masses are incapable of governing themselves! But that is not the way. That is not the truth. You are intelligent and capable and have the ability to seek the best of yourself for yourself. Because with democracy and capitalism, you make your way in this world and no one can ever steal that from you!

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:49

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 06:49

:dizzy2: Again, we come from different worlds, and we have different set beliefs.

...facist. ~D

Truth be told, I call everyone I dislike on the right a "facist", so don't take it personally, and don't hold out hope for me.

And- now I am being seroius here- DON'T try to convert me again. You will only piss me off. And I hate getting really pissed off at someone I have never even met.

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:53

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 06:57

Meatwad really is an angry little man, is he not? What, was that like a threat or something? :snore:

'Tis a spirited debate between differing ideals. Ho hum.

Run away.

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 06:58

Oh... just noticed that. Thanks for clarifying the timing involved- I coudl feel the Irish rage boiling up in me.

Disaster has been averted. The fragile objects in my room thank you. ~D

Edit: it's not you; it's just that I am short and Irish, and that is a baaaad combination. No offense intended.

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 07:01

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 07:04

Close... I am an even more powerless Socialst. ~:cheers:

A democrat? No wonder you thought there was hope for me!

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 07:16

Close... I am an even more powerless Socialst. ~:cheers:

A democrat? No wonder you thought there was hope for me!

There is always hope. But since you have *respectfully, ahem ~:rolleyes:* asked me to cease inundating you with enlightened wisdom and truth, I shall. But I offer you this: Should you be willing to enlighten ME, I will always be there to absorb the information. My humble philosophy of economic and social freedom can stand up to a little criticism.

So far, all I have heard from Jag, and the rest of the lib pack is negativity without real answers. I see no real solutions. Only venom.

And sure, we'll do our share of shredding. But we have a philosophy of solutions. What is the socialist answer? Take away everything and give it to the sate? So no one has any motivation to excel? Ah yes. A society of mediocrity perpetuated by the state. What a paradise.

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 07:18

One of these days, I will explain Socilaism to you- but not now. My brains are fried from staying up way too late. :dizzy2:

Anyway, I will be over at the EB forum if you want to harass me there. ~:cheers:

Ironside

08-07-2005, 08:59

"Economically right, socially left: You believe that government should stay out of your wallet as much as possible. You also believe that the government has no business establishing social values. Examples: Howard Stern. Libertarians."

That is how I would have definated myself.

Just a notice. What seems to be socially left in America is socially right in Sweden. ~:confused: Any Swedes here who agree?

Well it is more complicated than that. The party with most focus on social values is KD (no surprice there, it's the christian party. Rightwing party BTW), but the Socialdemocrats are running a bit of a nanny state (as in everything that is dangerous for you or your fellow countrymen should be discuraged or forbidden). So both sides is trying establish social values. I suspect that the middle parties are those who try least to establishing social values.
The moderates aren't so bad on that, but should they take after their continental counterparts, they would start to sound more like KD.

By the choices here I'm closest to Economic left, Social left.

Radier

08-07-2005, 10:26

I couldn´t agree more with Divinus Arma. One thing is to think that way, but he has also been in the socialy bottom, but still understood that the left is wrong. You shall be proud Divinus. ~:cheers:

I may aswell say my words to this debate...
No one has the responsebility to pay for someone else. I think there shall be no social subventions. Those who want to pay needy people, pay (I am one of them). Those who do not want to pay other people, don´t pay. No one shall be forced to pay others. That is robbery.

And meatwad you don´t have to explane socialism. Sovjet, Cuba and North Korea allready have...

Kagemusha

08-07-2005, 11:34

So far, all I have heard from Jag, and the rest of the lib pack is negativity without real answers. I see no real solutions. Only venom.

And sure, we'll do our share of shredding. But we have a philosophy of solutions. What is the socialist answer? Take away everything and give it to the sate? So no one has any motivation to excel? Ah yes. A society of mediocrity perpetuated by the state. What a paradise.

So you dont like the Scandinavian model and you think we are mediocre people.You are entitled to your opinion.Im glad you have found a perfect political model from rebuplican party.But i dont need you to tell me how we should live.Based on your personal experiences.If our beliefs is venom to you there is no reason to continue this discussion.You are entitled to your opinion so am i.

Lazul

08-07-2005, 11:58

what a depressing thread...

... anyway Left - Left for me!

Ser Clegane

08-07-2005, 11:59

Intermission

Looking at the discussion style in this thread I am seriously considering to close it.

I suggest that some patrons work on their posting style and focus on discussion the issue instead of name-calling, slander etc.

Thanks for your attention :bow:

Ser Clegane

Sjakihata

08-07-2005, 13:20

I may aswell say my words to this debate...
No one has the responsebility to pay for someone else. I think there shall be no social subventions. Those who want to pay needy people, pay (I am one of them). Those who do not want to pay other people, don´t pay. No one shall be forced to pay others. That is robbery.

And meatwad you don´t have to explane socialism. Sovjet, Cuba and North Korea allready have...

I get it, so the orphan, who have no place to go, since its parents died in a car accident, when he was 3, should just get a job and quit being lazy? Now, that's a real paradise.

Cube, Korea and Sovjet wasnt/arent socialist or communist for that matter, they might proclaim themselves as such, but then again Saddam proclaimed himself as protector of freedom etc.

bmolsson

08-07-2005, 17:33

I believe in market economy, but regulated to keep it an market economy. I also believe that the government should regulate the society, but I wouldn't make that for the "social" values......

Reverend Joe

08-07-2005, 19:04

I believe in market economy, but regulated to keep it an market economy. I also believe that the government should regulate the society, but I wouldn't make that for the "social" values......

...And that is socialism, my friends. ~:cool: At least, that is my defintion of socilaism: a well-regulated market economy, and an attempt to keep relative equalibrium- notice I say relative, not total- amongst the populace. It is not possible to have everybody at the exact same level, but then again, you don't have to have the ultra-rich ruling over the rest of the populace like medeival nobility.

Oh, and Sir Cleagane (hope I spelled that right)- I apologise for my earlier banter. It was too late, and I wasn't thinking right. :bow:

Divinus Arma

08-07-2005, 19:50

I get it, so the orphan, who have no place to go, since its parents died in a car accident, when he was 3, should just get a job and quit being lazy? Now, that's a real paradise.

See. That is exactly what I am talking about! No one is advocating a compassionless society.

You are jumping to conclusions on this one. Are we going to leave the 3 yr old out in the street to die? No, of course not.

We do need a safety net for legitimate situations such as this. There are times when events are beyond our control. This being one example, natural disasters being another, and worldwide economic depression being a third. There many more.

The response to these situations are limited state assistance. Give the three year old foster care until he is 18. But don't give him a free college education, free lifetime medical care, and a subsidized monthly stipend at 18.

There has to be limits. Nationalizing electricity and gasoline companies is not the answer. Providing your lowest population with a super-charged minimum wage so they can have the lifestyle of the educated skilled class is not the answer.

Red Harvest

08-08-2005, 00:08

Allow me to provide you with the glorious benefit of my superior incredible-like intellect and vastly more greaterist experience.

Not sure how your "greaterist" experience is going to help...

I was once a Democrat... Yes, 'tis true. I voted for Al Gore and distrusted the Republicans like any true Democrat would. The worker should hold more power, the executive is worthless... Oh evil government...

But then I awoke from the darkness of ignorance.

And apparently groggily stumbled into a well.

I as a shareholder do not get my money's worth out of most execs and would like their pay truly tied to performance or salaried like other employees. They are overcompensated by an order of magnitude. Fast food workers are not. In too many companies the execs are walking away with too much of what should be the shareholder's profit. Incestuous board relationships handicap shareholders in having any effect on this lunacy.

I realized a basic concept of economics: If you have more, then you will spend more. And thus the economy grows. This little seed grew into the tree 'tis now.

You might want to try getting your money back on that degree... As a percentage, those with greater wealth spend less, because they have a surplus. That was part of the fallacy of the tax cut. Those with the least spend every dime, because they need every dime. The supply side approach works when taxes are excessive, not when they are moderate. Hence a $2 trillion dollar gap between projections and reality.

And later you go into the typical inaccurate lefty labeling. Fits with the construction of your poll, too simplistic to be useful, hence my "GAH" vote. Did you happen to notice our so called "fiscal conservatives" have been the most fiscally irresponsible ever?

As for the rest of your rant, you are so flippin far off the mark, that it illustrates the maturity of an infant.

PanzerJaeger

08-08-2005, 05:20

I cannot think of one principle that the left adheres to that is even remotely logical or moral. Therefore, I am right wing.

PS. Great post about the left and democrats Arma. An education in economics and business tends to have that effect on former demo-liberals. ~;)

bmolsson

08-08-2005, 05:52

...And that is socialism, my friends. ~:cool: At least, that is my defintion of socilaism: a well-regulated market economy, and an attempt to keep relative equalibrium- notice I say relative, not total- amongst the populace. It is not possible to have everybody at the exact same level, but then again, you don't have to have the ultra-rich ruling over the rest of the populace like medeival nobility.

Oh, and Sir Cleagane (hope I spelled that right)- I apologise for my earlier banter. It was too late, and I wasn't thinking right. :bow:

If you say so... ~:grouphug:

The largest threat against a good market economy is monopoly and crony capitalism. Laws against monopoly, anti-trust legislation and laws to embrace healthy competition are a must to avoid polarisation in a market economy.
I have seen to much of monopoly and crony capitalism during my years of business in Asia.

The key to a succesful economy and a prosperous country is the SME, which stand for the brunt of the economy as well as the growth.

Divinus Arma

08-08-2005, 14:37

Not sure how your "greaterist" experience is going to help...

It is a sad attempt at humor.

I as a shareholder do not get my money's worth out of most execs and would like their pay truly tied to performance or salaried like other employees. They are overcompensated by an order of magnitude. Fast food workers are not. In too many companies the execs are walking away with too much of what should be the shareholder's profit. Incestuous board relationships handicap shareholders in having any effect on this lunacy.

I agree that performance should be tied to pay. That is actually a fundamental of human resource management. But guess what? It strictly goes against leftist econmic philosophy. Perfomance = pay...hmmm. Sounds like capitalism does it not?

You might want to try getting your money back on that degree... As a percentage, those with greater wealth spend less, because they have a surplus. That was part of the fallacy of the tax cut. Those with the least spend every dime, because they need every dime. The supply side approach works when taxes are excessive, not when they are moderate. Hence a $2 trillion dollar gap between projections and reality.

WTF? You think the rich just tuck their money under a mattress or hide it in a hole? Does spending mean buying cars and furniture? No. Investing is a form of spending. Depending on the level of risk you are willing to assume, you are "buying" more money. The more you "buy" ( higher return) the greater the chance you will lose it. So where does investment spending go? Investments grows the economy because business, companies, and individuals have more capital to pour into projects, which in turn makes them money. Same principle as buying a house. The bank "buys" my money by giving me a 30 year loan. I, in turn, use the money to purchase a home. All of the resources that it took to build the home took an investment from somebody else.

So as I said, spending grows the economy. I was being simplistic so my post would be read rather than giving you an economics lesson. I am glad to see that your degrees in basket-weaving and pornography have taught you basics in economics and business too.

Look at an extreme version of your flawed reasoning: If nobody had excess cash, where would the economy be? Right. Now go sit in the corner.

Did you happen to notice our so called "fiscal conservatives" have been the most fiscally irresponsible ever?

And this is something that True Republicans are very angry about. Aside fromm the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has engaged in overspending on Social programs. But you just can't give him any lefty credit as compassionate, can you?

As for the rest of your rant, you are so flippin far off the mark, that it illustrates the maturity of an infant.

I gave some personal pokes, so I shall take them as well. Now where is my bottle? *wanders off*

Ser Clegane

08-08-2005, 15:02

So where does investment spending go? Investments grows the economy because business, companies, and individuals have more capital to pour into projects, which in turn makes them money.

Or you simply drive up e.g., stock prices because you do not now what else to do with the money (which does not really help your economy).
Not all money that is "invested" ends up in tangible assets and/or creates jobs/growth.

I gave some personal pokes, so I shall take them as well.

Good reply :bow:

However, I expect the exchange of "personal pokes" to end at this point of the thread (as it tends to get out of hands.

Moros

08-08-2005, 15:19

[cheerleader_mode]left go left go left[/cherleader_mode]

Red Harvest

08-08-2005, 15:58

Or you simply drive up e.g., stock prices because you do not now what else to do with the money (which does not really help your economy).
Not all money that is "invested" ends up in tangible assets and/or creates jobs/growth.

Exactly right. That is precisely what has happened with the trillions that evaporated. There has been a lack of vision by business leaders pulling in the big bucks that has lead to a dearth of good places to invest. Govt. leadership has failed to adequately push business reform or encourage major research. It is a leadership problem both in the private and public arena.

Those with a surplus, and therefore investing vs. spending are pushing around a bubble. The bubble gets moved from sector to sector. As each artificial pricing bubble collapses, some of the excess paper wealth disappears in that sector.

Red Harvest

08-08-2005, 17:03

WTF? You think the rich just tuck their money under a mattress or hide it in a hole? Does spending mean buying cars and furniture? No. Investing is a form of spending. Depending on the level of risk you are willing to assume, you are "buying" more money. The more you "buy" ( higher return) the greater the chance you will lose it. So where does investment spending go? Investments grows the economy because business, companies, and individuals have more capital to pour into projects, which in turn makes them money. Same principle as buying a house.

And if you invest it poorly that is all lost in ventures that produce little good for the economy (reference: see "bubble.")

By the way, pointing to housing in a very hot rising market illustrates some self delusion. It is just like pointing at stock investment in a bull stock run (before 2000 for example.) There has been a lot of housing selling for many times its replacement value. Think about that for a minute...if a home appreciates by 100% and the expense to build that home has only increased by 20%, what is that extra 80%? Much of it is speculation. And that extra 80% hasn't employed more people or increased standards of living (except for a small amount in sales commissions.)

You can keep twisting on this as long as you want, but if you give 100 dollars to a low wage earner all of that money is going to go back into the economy immediately. If you give 100 dollars to a high wage earner only a portion is going to be put back into the economy immediately. The future return is uncertain. You are operating under the "throw money at it" approach to investing and this often goes hand in hand with fad investing or chasing the bubble. There is such a thing as having too much cash available to invest.

So as I said, spending grows the economy. I was being simplistic so my post would be read rather than giving you an economics lesson. I am glad to see that your degrees in basket-weaving and pornography have taught you basics in economics and business too.

Actually, my degree was more technical and challenging than econ. We lumped econ classes with the "easy A" courses. The nuts and bolts are quite logical, and are standard tools of my trade. The economic theory that gets bandied about is another matter. There aren't that many competing theories for basic physical science, while economics is full of competing/mutually exclusive theories.

What I have learned about business is mainly from being involved in business decisions. The key thing I learned is that the execs and those with the business degrees had very little sense of risk/reward assessment or long term investment planning. They tended to delude themselves into believing oil would always be cheap, and that R&D was just an annual expense that could be turned off and on like a spigot.

Look at an extreme version of your flawed reasoning: If nobody had excess cash, where would the economy be? Right. Now go sit in the corner.

That's not mine, its yours. Your idea of the spending model is fundamentally flawed. I've read economist analyses of these matters and the concensus review of the tax cut effect disagreed with your idea. The justification was short term stimulus lifting by the boot straps, but the money was not found to have been used in that way, except at the lower wage earners.

And this is something that True Republicans are very angry about. Aside fromm the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has engaged in overspending on Social programs. But you just can't give him any lefty credit as compassionate, can you?

More of the gratuitious lefty crap? Never get tired of trying to mislabel people do you? "True Republicans" have voted and supported all of this. The overspending wasn't on "Social Programs" it was on EVERYTHING. The excuse is to blame it on social programs. The real problem was in failing to maintain revenue while spending irresponsibly. A degree in "Voodoo Economics" is not a real degree... And the cost of servicing that extra debt is substantial.

Here is what I have suspected since early 2001 that the real Dubya agenda is, and of the Right: The idea is to completely dismantle social programs that the majority of americans actually consider to be positive. This is being done by running massive deficits by giving popular short sighted tax cuts. The thrust is to make the programs artificially unsupportable in the future by saddling us with mountains of debt today. The familiar refrain is "we can't afford this/that." The truth is we could afford it, but the Right doesn't want it. They will gladly sabotage the system to tie our hands.

Divinus Arma

08-08-2005, 19:48

And if you invest it poorly that is all lost in ventures that produce little good for the economy (reference: see "bubble.")

Now you are the one that's got to be joking. Bubble? Sure. They happen. Tech, housing, whatever. But if you think that every investment is a bubble, then you have problems. Some investments are secure and others are not so much so. It is this risk that we accept in making investment decisions, and thus is part of the cost in "buying money". Every business is an investment. Every business needs capital. And no business runs solely on retained profits. All businesses operate in some form of debt in order to maximize gains. If I take out a loan for 500 bucks and expect it to cost 10% a year for five years, but I can generate a profit of 11% for five years, then that is the smart way to go. Realistically, nobody operates with 1% return on investments. Usually they set the bar a tad higher in deciding the worth of a project. But it takes money to buy into these types of investments. If you give a man his money he is able to use it in this way.

By the way, pointing to housing in a very hot rising market illustrates some self delusion. It is just like pointing at stock investment in a bull stock run (before 2000 for example.) There has been a lot of housing selling for many times its replacement value. Think about that for a minute...if a home appreciates by 100% and the expense to build that home has only increased by 20%, what is that extra 80%? Much of it is speculation. And that extra 80% hasn't employed more people or increased standards of living (except for a small amount in sales commissions.)

I pointed to housing just as an example. No particular reason. Look at my more general example above. It is more explanatory. No business operates on retained capital. It is wasteful to do so.

You can keep twisting on this as long as you want, but if you give 100 dollars to a low wage earner all of that money is going to go back into the economy immediately. If you give 100 dollars to a high wage earner only a portion is going to be put back into the economy immediately. The future return is uncertain. You are operating under the "throw money at it" approach to investing and this often goes hand in hand with fad investing or chasing the bubble. There is such a thing as having too much cash available to invest.

This is complete and total ignorance. I will educate you in basic business. Try to keep an open mind and you may learn something:

Jack is a poor wage earner. He wants to own his own business, say a Lemonade stand. The problem is that Jack has no money to open a business. Jill is a wealthy person. She wants to make more money. So she gives jack a loan of $1,000 with the promise from jack that he will give her 10% interest a year. Jack knows that he can earn 15% in returns a year from the business. He takes the loan and both he and Jill make money if the business goes as planned.

Sometimes it does good, sometimes it goes bad, sometimes it goes great. But entrepreneurs and investors assume that risk. What if jill didn't have the $1,000 because the government took it? They would both be out of luck.

Actually, my degree was more technical and challenging than econ. We lumped econ classes with the "easy A" courses. The nuts and bolts are quite logical, and are standard tools of my trade. The economic theory that gets bandied about is another matter. There aren't that many competing theories for basic physical science, while economics is full of competing/mutually exclusive theories.

What I have learned about business is mainly from being involved in business decisions. The key thing I learned is that the execs and those with the business degrees had very little sense of risk/reward assessment or long term investment planning. They tended to delude themselves into believing oil would always be cheap, and that R&D was just an annual expense that could be turned off and on like a spigot.

So you don't know anything except common sense. Common sense is good, but it will only get you so far. It sounds like the idiots you work for have an education but no common sense. Hey it happens.

That's not mine, its yours. Your idea of the spending model is fundamentally flawed. I've read economist analyses of these matters and the concensus review of the tax cut effect disagreed with your idea. The justification was short term stimulus lifting by the boot straps, but the money was not found to have been used in that way, except at the lower wage earners.

My idea? So this is my economic theory? I wish I could take the credit, but sorry, that was done by smarter people than me. It's not just a short term stimulus. Look at my above posting on business.

More of the gratuitious lefty crap? Never get tired of trying to mislabel people do you? "True Republicans" have voted and supported all of this. The overspending wasn't on "Social Programs" it was on EVERYTHING. The excuse is to blame it on social programs. The real problem was in failing to maintain revenue while spending irresponsibly. A degree in "Voodoo Economics" is not a real degree... And the cost of servicing that extra debt is substantial.

Parties change views slightly as time goes on and depending on who is in power and who supports who. Right now the gov is backed by religious kooks. Something I am not happy about either. And what "voodoo" economics? I agree with you. The government is too big, too powerful, and has spent too much.Do you think we are in debt becasue of the party that is in power? Clinton gets all this credit for "the economy" when he had nothing to do with it. (Edit: and BTW that surplus is OUR money, but the dems act like it belongs to the government) It was the rapid rise and implementation of information and communication technology that powereeed productivity and spurred gains. Bush took over right when we had a tech bust and 9/11 happened.

Here is what I have suspected since early 2001 that the real Dubya agenda is, and of the Right: The idea is to completely dismantle social programs that the majority of americans actually consider to be positive. This is being done by running massive deficits by giving popular short sighted tax cuts. The thrust is to make the programs artificially unsupportable in the future by saddling us with mountains of debt today. The familiar refrain is "we can't afford this/that." The truth is we could afford it, but the Right doesn't want it. They will gladly sabotage the system to tie our hands.

Your little theory is just conjecture. You reason that tax cuts + rising debt from war and economic woes + Republican small government ideals = master plan to cut all social programs.

Kind of a leap, isn't it? Perception is skewed according to the frame through which we view it. Perception is not reality.

Don Corleone

08-08-2005, 20:24

I said economically right (free-market ventures) and socially left. As Ironside pointed out, I reject your characterization of "Government stays out of moral issues", as I think the Democrats in America pontificate on humanism every bit as much as Republicans do on religion. I picked Socially Left based on your definitions, but you really out to change the titles of them to be 'authoritarian/libertarian', i.e. government has a role to play in dictating morality (left or right) to its populus or it doesn't (I say it doesn't, that's what my church is for).

Red Harvest

08-08-2005, 21:27

This is complete and total ignorance. I will educate you in basic business.

I already understand basic business. I also understand what happens in a flat economy and when lots of money is chasing meager actual returns (you know, based on little insignificant things like dividends and real earnings.)

Those folks in my company were merely a reflection of the rest of the industry. They all benchmark and try to look just alike. They seem to think that is the key to success. Why do you think Dilbert was so popular? It's because he was reflecting the business culture, we could all see it.

And what "voodoo" economics? <snip> Do you think we are in debt becasue of the party that is in power?

Yes, or more precisely, about $2 trillion more in debt because of them. The basis for the tax cuts was voodoo economics.

Clinton gets all this credit for "the economy" when he had nothing to do with it. (Edit: and BTW that surplus is OUR money, but the dems act like it belongs to the government)

Clinton had a lot to do with it, but Perot deserves a lot of credit for getting people focusing on the growing federal deficit. Clinton had the sense to use a moderate approach that was good for the economy, he was very moderate toward business. He also took advantage of the peace dividend. Tech and such were very helpful of course.

No, it wasn't "OUR money", it was money that should have been used to continue paying off DEBT--money that we already OWED. That was what was stupid about the whole movement at the time. Someone deep in debt, finds a few dollars on the street and yells, "I'm rich, let's party!" He squanders the money, doesn't pay the bills, but instead gets himself even deeper in debt.

Bush took over right when we had a tech bust and 9/11 happened.

Dubya rejected both of those kinds of concerns to sell his package. He was warned, but he didn't listen. What did he propose after 9/11? More tax cuts, more of the same, while preparing another war. As was pointed out by many at the time Dubya originally unveiled his plan, the ecomony was at a peak and was cresting and coming down. It was not clear how much would need to blow off, but there was little doubt that it was going to reduce profits and therefore tax revenue for some time. Some sectors had already been in a major decline for nearly two years. It was a case of simple, sound economics. The decline was already underway. Making projections at the peak was intellectually dishonest, and we knew it at the time. Dubya supporters were saying this was going to be a big boost to the economy...didn't work out that way.

The major military emergency/conflict was also a large concern against doing the cut at the time. Dubya chose to discount this. Again, anything but sound economic judgement. Nothing economically "conservative" in his approach to the budget, and he had LOTS of help--including Greenspan.

It was bad economic reasoning from the start, too bad Dubya wasn't held accountable for it.

Your little theory is just conjecture. You reason that tax cuts + rising debt from war and economic woes + Republican small government ideals = master plan to cut all social programs.

Kind of a leap, isn't it?

Conjecture, but not really a leap, I've always been the type that looks a few years farther down the road than average. I like to know where I'm headed, rather than just where I've been. I can see where running obscenely high deficits is taking us. The cry is "govt is too big". However, since the private sector is doing away with pensions and medical coverage, I see Social Security and medical programs as being more important now than they were 5, 10, or 20 years ago. I also can't see U.S. investment returns doing much more than inflation level over the long haul, without fundamental improvement in R&D and long range govt. policy making to get ahead of the curve on energy, environment, medicine, and tech leadership. We have a massive deficit/debt, and we have a massive trade imbalance driven by cheap labor, manufacturing, etc over seas (which is now expanding into higher and higher skill/education levels of the U.S. economy.) Oil demand price inelasticity remains as it was in the '70's, and production is peaking while demand is growing. Altogether these fundamental problems are likely to make the economy "underperform" over the long haul.