What are your political leanings? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What are your political leanings?

Caesar1844
08-17-2011, 03:44 AM
Just curious.

Dmitry Verdasco
08-17-2011, 09:39 AM
Liberal :)

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 12:40 PM
Rabid neoliberal.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 01:09 PM
I don't see how being Democrat or Republican are in any way "Major Left" or "Major Right" at all

These two "parties" represent two sections of the buisness party and are thus relatively speaking right wing. The Democratic Party is, of course, more in tune with the interests of the people, but it is still quite right wing.

To speak of far right or far left would be to speak of, for example, a Neo-conservative or even further than that a Facist of sorts.

Far left implies actual communism, not the one that the Soviets or Cuba claimed to be, which in reality is just plain out dictatorship.

Even further left is what I consider myself which is "Liberatarian-Socialst" or "Anarcho-syndicalist" which is, of course, of the traditional Anarchist tradition.

This has nothing to do with the way Anarchism is portrayed today, which is to say chaos and disorder. Traditional Anarchy refers to voluntary cooperation in an loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations.

Yes, I know it is quite ridiculous to speak of this and not seem like a complete idealist and out of touch with reality, but these are the ideals I support.

One other comment, the Green party, at least in the US is way more far left than the Democrats.

And the US conception of Liberatarian, which is basically a buisness run society, with no government intervention in almost anything, is way more far right than even the conservatives.

At least those are my two cents worth. :)

Seingeist
08-17-2011, 01:49 PM
These two "parties" represent two sections of the buisness party and are thus relatively speaking right wing. The Democratic Party is, of course, more in tune with the interests of the people, but it is still quite right wing.

A startling percentage of "the people" do not seem to agree with this.

This has nothing to do with the way Anarchism is portrayed today, which is to say chaos and disorder. Traditional Anarchy refers to voluntary cooperation in an loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations.

Good luck with that. If human beings have proven anything in their time together on this earth, it is surely how "voluntarily cooperative" they are prone to be.

Yes, I know it is quite ridiculous to speak of this and not seem like a complete idealist and out of touch with reality, but these are the ideals I support.

This is indeed completely out of touch with reality, which damns it to complete irrelevance (but an irrelevance not at all atypical of the academically-self-indulgent). Your mental energies are surely better spent supporting (or developing) a system that is not as thoroughly oblivious to human nature.

And the US conception of Liberatarian, which is basically a buisness run society, with no government intervention in almost anything, is way more far right than even the conservatives.


Ironically enough, it is not at all clear to me how this definition of Libertarianism (which is "way more far right") differs substantially from a "loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations," which is your own enlightened position (and considerably far left, by your estimation).

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 01:58 PM
A startling percentage of "the people" do not seem to agree with this.



Good luck with that. If human beings have proven anything in their time together on this earth, it is surely how "voluntarily cooperative" they are prone to be.



This is indeed completely out of touch with reality, which damns it to complete irrelevance (but an irrelevance not at all atypical of the academically-self-indulgent). Your mental energies are surely better spent supporting (or developing) a system that is not as thoroughly oblivious to human nature.



Ironically enough, it is not at all clear to me how this definition of Libertarianism (which is "way more far right") differs substantially from a "loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations," which is your own enlightened position (and considerably far left, by your estimation).

In one case, traditional libertarianism refered to not having any sort of authority tell you what to do. In the case if US Liberaterians, if you get "government of your back", you have to deal with Buisness authority, which exists and is quite brutal. This is not to say that many aspects of Governments are quite harsh, but governments at least have the potential for Democratic reformation, coorperations next to zero.

As far as you calling my perspective completely out of touch with reality, I don't see it that way.

I think ideals of vouluntarily helping people are not completely alien to what human beings feel towards each other, however from that to forming a society of voluntary associations is a far step, education is needed, a democratic spirit, etc.

I don't think you have any better insights to what human nature is than anyone else, me included. You can argue people are selfish and arrogant, but they can also be the opposite, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in.

If I came out as "enlightened" I apologize, it's simply the way I feel my ideals strive to and I do not think, as I stated, that feeling compassion for others is completely alien at all.

I believe this is what Democratic Socialisim conists of, caring for other people.

And yes, I also agree with you saying that many people are now completely dissillusioned with the Democrats, and I agree.

But I don't think they used to represent at all, for example, what the FDR-type Democrats did.

In fact, if you look at the so called "Obamacare" it is extremely simialar to what the Republicans offered as an alternative to Clinton's universal healthcare program. So they also have shifted to the right.

Now, if you buy into the whole free market is the best ideology, then you have what we today, which is quite bad.

Filo V.
08-17-2011, 02:30 PM
I'm a member of the common sense party.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 02:34 PM
I'm a member of the common sense party.

:lol:

It's a great party, but sadly lacking a voice in the US. :)

Garson007
08-17-2011, 03:01 PM
I'm an out and out Marxist. I do however understand that we do not live in a world of *abundance, so I'm pretty happy with social democracy (a lot of Marxists aren't), but only as a stepping stone. Once such a communal abundance is reached there is nothing that says an individual abundance can't also be reached - which will then give the libertarians orgasms, no doubt. It however all depends on future technology and whether or not a technological advanced society can actually work together and be able to produce all the necessities.

*Relatively speaking. An amazonian tribe member might actually feel he lives under the influence of abundance, made possible by working together towards common goals as a tribal society. Which is basically what socialism is, but just on a much smaller and much less technological level.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 03:08 PM
I'm an out and out Marxist. I do however understand that we do not live in a world of *abundance, so I'm pretty happy with social democracy (a lot of Marxists aren't), but only as a stepping stone. Once such a communal abundance is reached there is nothing that says an individual abundance can't also be reached - which will then give the libertarians orgasms, no doubt. It however all depends on future technology and whether or not a technological advanced society can actually work together and be able to produce all the necessities.

*Relatively speaking. An amazonian tribe member might actually feel he lives under the influence of abundance, made possible by being working towards common goals as a society. Which is basically what socialism is, but just on a much smaller and much less technological level.

I'm curious, do you follow Slavoj Zizek?

He's an extremely interesting Marxist.

Garson007
08-17-2011, 03:13 PM
I'm curious, do you follow Slavoj Zizek?

He's an extremely interesting Marxist.
I'm going to be a bit red faced here, but I'm not particularly well read when it comes to political philosophers or indeed philosophers in general.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm going to be a bit red faced here, but I'm not particularly well read when it comes to political philosophers or indeed philosophers in general.

That's fine, there is no need to be well read in philosophy at all to have interesting opinions in politics.

But then I ask, what made you learn about Marxism?

Garson007
08-17-2011, 03:29 PM
But then I ask, what made you learn about Marxism?
Introspection, world experiences, etc. I guess.

It helps that I have often read discussions and/or debates concerning politics on forums like this one. I read up about the terms used in the discussions and then come to my own set of conclusions based there upon. I hold a university degree, but I've never had any formal education in philosophy; I still hold philosophy in very high regard, however. In fact, I feel that the ability to philosophise, above all else, is what separates us from the rest of know life.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 03:32 PM
Introspection, world experiences, etc. I guess.

It helps that I have often read discussions and/or debates concerning politics on forums like this one. Reading up about the terms used in discussion and coming to my own set of conclusions based there upon. I hold a university degree, but I've never had any formal education in philosophy; I still hold philosophy in very high regard, however. In fact, I feel that the ability to philosophise, above all else, is what separates us from the rest of know life.

There are some extremely good non-dense books about the "important" philosophers that you might like:

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Book-DK-Publishing/dp/0756668611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313595048&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Bryan-Magee/dp/078947994X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

The first one is the best intro to philsophy I've seen, the second one has more information on less philosophers, but they are excellent in any case. :)

ibreak4coffee
08-17-2011, 03:33 PM
Rabid Federerite

Mjau!
08-17-2011, 04:08 PM
A one dimensional scale only works if you only have one factor (probably not the correct term at all but you know what I mean). Since politics isn't quite that limited, the left-right political scale is completely useless and misleading. It's also biased (and needs to be due to its limitations), because left tends to be defined by socialism and everything that differs is pushed off to the right. This is why fascism and libertarianism are neck and neck on Pfloyd's scale even though they are fundamentally different on virtually every point. If instead, right-wing was defined by libertarianism, fascism becomes a left-ideology along with socialism. And if right-wing was defined by conservatism (as it originally was), both libertarianism and socialism are left-wing.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 04:13 PM
A one dimensional scale only works if you only have one factor (probably not the correct term at all but you know what I mean). Since politics isn't quite that limited, the left-right political scale is completely useless and misleading. It's also biased (and needs to be due to its limitations), because left tends to be defined by socialism and everything that differs is pushed off to the right. This is why fascism and libertarianism are neck and neck on Pfloyd's scale even though they are fundamentally different on virtually every point. If instead, right-wing was defined by libertarianism, fascism becomes a left-ideology along with socialism. And if right-wing was defined by conservatism (as it originally was), both libertarianism and socialism are left-wing.

I agree with a lot of what you state but I would like to stress that Liberatarinsim under the US definition, that is Ron Paul and folks, differs from traditional liberatarinism which seeks liberty on all fronts.

In the US, liberetarianism means a buisness run society with almost no government control. And this is close to tyranny in my view.

But you are 100% correct that traditional libertarianism is left wing.

Garson007
08-17-2011, 04:17 PM
A one dimensional scale only works if you only have one factor (probably not the correct term at all but you know what I mean). Since politics isn't quite that limited, the left-right political scale is completely useless and misleading. It's also biased (and needs to be due to its limitations), because left tends to be defined by socialism and everything that differs is pushed off to the right. This is why fascism and libertarianism are neck and neck on Pfloyd's scale even though they are fundamentally different on virtually every point. If instead, right-wing was defined by libertarianism, fascism becomes a left-ideology along with socialism. And if right-wing was defined by conservatism (as it originally was), both libertarianism and socialism are left-wing.
Which is why I find a model like the following one more appealing:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

That still has limitations however.

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 04:27 PM
Far left implies actual communism, not the one that the Soviets or Cuba claimed to be, which in reality is just plain out dictatorship.

Even further left is what I consider myself which is "Liberatarian-Socialst" or "Anarcho-syndicalist" which is, of course, of the traditional Anarchist tradition.

This has nothing to do with the way Anarchism is portrayed today, which is to say chaos and disorder. Traditional Anarchy refers to voluntary cooperation in an loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations.



There used to be a poster here who insisted that Communism could not be criticised because ''real'' Communism had never been practised. According to him, all the examples of Communism in the world, such as USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba, weren't actually Communism, - because Communism could not fail.

You seem to be extending this to anarchy - ''there are no actual examples of real anarchy having been practised, so what anarchy is defined as today is not anarchy''.

The problem with anarchy I suppose, would be in getting people to volunteer to be free. Some things seem OK on paper, but overlook the human factor.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 04:33 PM
There used to be a poster here who insisted that Communism could not be criticised because ''real'' Communism had never been practised.

You seem to be extending this to anarchy - ''there are no actual examples of real anarchy having been practised, so what anarchy is defied as today is not anarchy''.

The problem with anarchy I suppose, would be in getting people to volunteer to be free. Some things seem OK on paper, but overlook the human factor.

No I am not saying that "real anarchy" never existed, I consider for example, the period of Republican Spain to be examples of Anarchist societes, which George Orwell actually lived in and wrote about in "Homage to Catalonia".

I do want to differenciate the dictionary definition of the word, which defines it as chaos, from the political theory, which is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Smaller examples would include the Israili Kibuttzim, which are close to direct democracy and then of course, ancient Athens had some good direct democracy elements, with many fatal flaws.

But you are right, the human factor makes anarchy very difficult though not entirely impossible as has been seen. Though it would not be ideal, many problems would remain, others would be solved democratically.

In any case, how do you see financial liberalization helping the common folk instead of big companies?

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 04:42 PM
In any case, how do you see financial liberalization helping the common folk instead of big companies?

I really did write my little piece before reading from the Book of Seingeist higher up the thread.

As far as I understand financial liberalization, I am common folk and I like it.

I did read the Wikipedia article and have to conclude that whereas anarchy might have been viable for small states before the industrial revolution and global population explosion, it probably could not work today.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 04:46 PM
I really did write my little piece before reading from the Book of Seingeist higher up the thread.

As far as I understand financial liberalization, I am common folk and I like it.

But how would you respond to the financial crisis of 2008 which was caused to a large extent by financial liberalization?

I mean, I am for individual autonomy of individual resources in many areas, but if I can spend my money responsibly (or you yours) , I think Wall Street could do the same...

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 04:57 PM
But how would you respond to the financial crisis of 2008 which was caused to a large extent by financial liberalization?



I just sat tight and did nothing. I am better off now than I was before the crisis.

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 05:04 PM
I just sat tight and did nothing. I am better off now than I was before the crisis.

Ok.

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 07:49 PM
Ok.

As one becomes older the urge to change the world diminishes in favour of self-preservation.

EDIT: But I guess even that is not constant. I met a Toronto philanthropist in his 90's who provides eyeglasses for Colombian kids in rural areas. He visits his eye clinics regularly. When I asked him if he was not afraid of being kidnapped in the mountains, he replied, "At my age there is not much left to lose and that would be a really exciting way to go."

Pfloyd
08-17-2011, 08:23 PM
As one becomes older the urge to change the world diminishes in favour of self-preservation.

EDIT: But I guess even that is not constant. I met a Toronto philanthropist in his 90's who provides eyeglasses for Colombian kids in rural areas. He visits his eye clinics regularly. When I asked him if he was not afraid of being kidnapped in the mountains, he replied, "At my age there is not much left to lose and that would be a really exciting way to go."

:lol:

I've heard this many times, but like you said, it can go any way.

In any case, having ideals is not bad, I am not dumb enough to believe even one-eigth of what I would like to see will ever happen, in fact, things are seeming to go off in dangerous directions.

Still, regardless of age, it's sad to see so much poverty and misery, just yesterday coming to the capital I saw 3 people die in a car accident. Horrible roads, security, no democracy. In fact the lastest stats here are:

Salaries in the public sector in Dominican Republic:

Firefighter........$ 5,000.00 to save lives and risks there own.
Poilce............$ 7,000.00 to save lives and risk there own
Profesors.........$ 8,000.00 to help others prepare for life
Doctor..........$30,000.00 to keep lives
Congressmen: $300 y $600 thousand. Here quite literally just to steal.

Regardless of ideology this things are pathetic.

Current exchange rate is about 35 pesos to dollar.

buddyholly
08-17-2011, 10:33 PM
Still, regardless of age, it's sad to see so much poverty and misery, just yesterday coming to the capital I saw 3 people die in a car accident. Horrible roads, security, no democracy. In fact the lastest stats here are:



I forgot you were in the DR. So what are you complaining about? It is anarchy there.

Don't forget I drove from Sto Dmgo to Piedra Blanca for 15 years on a 2-lane highway. I saw death many times.

Is there much mention of Pueblo Viejo? At todays gold prices the DR could see huge government incomes over the next 20 years. The gold in the ground is valued at $40 billion now. And I thought Barrick was nuts for investing 2.5 billion to put it in production! Duh!

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 01:25 AM
Leftist, as anyone with half a brain...

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 01:28 AM
A one dimensional scale only works if you only have one factor (probably not the correct term at all but you know what I mean). Since politics isn't quite that limited, the left-right political scale is completely useless and misleading. It's also biased (and needs to be due to its limitations), because left tends to be defined by socialism and everything that differs is pushed off to the right. This is why fascism and libertarianism are neck and neck on Pfloyd's scale even though they are fundamentally different on virtually every point. If instead, right-wing was defined by libertarianism, fascism becomes a left-ideology along with socialism. And if right-wing was defined by conservatism (as it originally was), both libertarianism and socialism are left-wing.

No they're not.

Both "liberals" and fascists couldn't care less about the people and the proletariat. They're blood brothers.

Mjau!
08-18-2011, 01:37 AM
Glenn :wavey:

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 01:46 AM
What?

Pfloyd
08-18-2011, 01:51 AM
I forgot you were in the DR. So what are you complaining about? It is anarchy there.

Don't forget I drove from Sto Dmgo to Piedra Blanca for 15 years on a 2-lane highway. I saw death many times.

Is there much mention of Pueblo Viejo? At todays gold prices the DR could see huge government incomes over the next 20 years. The gold in the ground is valued at $40 billion now. And I thought Barrick was nuts for investing 2.5 billion to put it in production! Duh!

Just for the politicians though. :lol:

RafterFanatic
08-18-2011, 02:05 AM
By the way, democrats major left?

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

With all due respect, this is the most absurd thing I've ever read. I'm sorry, but the democrats are centre-right at best.

El Legenda
08-18-2011, 02:46 AM
I use to be in the middle, then in 2008 I started watching Fox News and that has turned me into a Liberal....for life. I will never vote for any Republican or Conservative in any national, state or local election.

buddyholly
08-18-2011, 04:11 AM
Leftist, as anyone with half a brain...

I've got a whole one, though.

Caesar1844
08-18-2011, 04:12 AM
I don't see how being Democrat or Republican are in any way "Major Left" or "Major Right" at all

These two "parties" represent two sections of the buisness party and are thus relatively speaking right wing. The Democratic Party is, of course, more in tune with the interests of the people, but it is still quite right wing.

To speak of far right or far left would be to speak of, for example, a Neo-conservative or even further than that a Facist of sorts.

Far left implies actual communism, not the one that the Soviets or Cuba claimed to be, which in reality is just plain out dictatorship.

Even further left is what I consider myself which is "Liberatarian-Socialst" or "Anarcho-syndicalist" which is, of course, of the traditional Anarchist tradition.

This has nothing to do with the way Anarchism is portrayed today, which is to say chaos and disorder. Traditional Anarchy refers to voluntary cooperation in an loosely tied free organization, interlinked with other such organizations.

Yes, I know it is quite ridiculous to speak of this and not seem like a complete idealist and out of touch with reality, but these are the ideals I support.

One other comment, the Green party, at least in the US is way more far left than the Democrats.

And the US conception of Liberatarian, which is basically a buisness run society, with no government intervention in almost anything, is way more far right than even the conservatives.

At least those are my two cents worth. :)
What you meant to say was "Minor left".

I realise that the pure left-right spectrum is limited, and some people consider the major parties to "not really be left wing" or "not really be right wing". But it's a simple enough quick test to see roughly where people stand when it comes to relatively mainstream political discourse.

Dmitry Verdasco
08-18-2011, 11:48 AM
One thing I do believe is that parliamentarians should get no retirement fund (where the get paid an annual salary for being a politician ... once). It's ridiculous. If the retirement pension in my country is good enough for every other Australian, it should be good enough for the people responsible for putting it in place.

I also hate unionists. Especially the mining ones where their workers are earning money most can only dream of. :unsure:

hicdick
08-18-2011, 07:41 PM
good to see some lefties around. well in Manu and Garson007 :yeah:

Seingeist
08-18-2011, 08:11 PM
good to see some lefties around. well in Manu and Garson007 :yeah:

:confused:

Yeah, "lefties" are quite the prized rarity among predominantly young internet-forum crawlers... :rolleyes:

Lopez
08-18-2011, 11:31 PM
As far as fiscal policy and the economy goes, I guess I'm more right than the average Finn, however this is likely more left than right-wingers in other countries :P.

As far as value system goes, I'm very liberal.

Chip_s_m
08-19-2011, 01:47 AM
Jeffersonian democrat, although I hate to apply the word democrat since doing so associates the term with the modern fascists who have stolen it. Democracy at the massive scale we have today has been a complete disaster. Contrary to what most believe (or have been told), the democratic form of government we have today is largely new in the post-WW2 era. It's an experiment and it's failing. The economic issues, the rise of the police state, empire, the bankocracy/corpocracy are all consequences of this form of government. Worse, they were all predicted long ago.

What's a Jeffersonian, you ask? It's someone who strongly believes in decentralized government. Don't confuse this with small or limited government, although that is certainly a possibility. Jeffersonian democracy simply acknowledges that people in different communities will likely have different beliefs and that it is immoral to force people (via a strong central government) to live under the values of others. Doing so simply creates tension and conflict.

What would this look like? If the people of Vermont, for example, wish to create a Marxist utopia then they should absolutely be allowed to. However, they have no right to force that onto the people of say, Alabama, who would likely want something completely different. If the Marxist utopia is such a wonderful idea then the people of Alabama will soon recognize this and institute it themselves. There would be no need to force them into it. The best ideas would win out as people would either adopt the more desirable policies from other communities or just pack up and move to it. It's way too difficult to do that today.

Garson007
08-19-2011, 09:47 AM
Chip_s_m, although I find your idea entertaining, remember the amount of globalisation that has happened and will continue to happen.

Helevorn
08-19-2011, 02:06 PM
My political thoughts can be roughly classified as "social democracy" (from Eduard Bernstein's teaching onwards) - "federal" social democracy, if I have to apply it to the "nation" I'm living in. I would say "nationalist" social democracy if my region or my historical nation were autonomous.

Only in a theoretical way though, because politics in Italy as a whole is more corrupted and useless (in terms of concrete results) than that in the Central African Republic, so I don't bother to join/support/vote a political party or another, we have 100 of them and they're pretty much all the same.

Sometimes I think that a two–party (U.S.-like) system would be perfect even here, then I realize that the overwhelming majority of Italian politicians is corrupted, incompetent and generally ridiculous :zzz:

sexybeast
08-20-2011, 05:06 PM
Geolibertarian.

Getta
08-21-2011, 12:39 AM
most of the time i feel like i am swinging back and forth and hitting between aristocratic platonic idealism and revolutionary machiavellian pragmatism.

Pfloyd
08-21-2011, 02:16 AM
This thread needs to be somewhat more clear on what the terminologies of "Left-right" are, this chart is rather decent:

http://chicago.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/8/large/2_political_spectrum.jpg

Getta
08-21-2011, 02:28 AM
a hive mind, a hive mind, my kingdom for a hive mind.

Caesar1844
08-21-2011, 02:36 AM
this chart is rather decent:
No it's not. It's absurdly biased in its descriptions.

People are overanalysing way too much. All mainstream political parties are generically characterised as left or right by society, the media, etc. They're just convenient mainstream and generalist labels that I used to get an idea of where people roughly sit when they go to the polling booth.

I don't particularly care if people don't like to put those labels on their political beliefs, or if they disagree with mainstream definitions.

Pfloyd
08-21-2011, 02:45 AM
No it's not. It's absurdly biased in its descriptions.

People are overanalysing way too much. All mainstream political parties are generically characterised as left or right by society, the media, etc. They're just convenient mainstream and generalist labels that I used to get an idea of where people roughly sit when they go to the polling booth.

I don't particularly care if people don't like to put those labels on their political beliefs, or if they disagree with mainstream definitions.

Well, I think the more detailed the description of what you believe in, the more you get away from typical "media stereotypes" in any case, having an idea as to where you belong politically has many uses in aligning yourself with people who agree with your views.

In any case "overanalysing" is better than the opposite in this area, which tends to make broad-generalizations and tries to keep people from figuring out what they believe.

In terms of the examples it gives for the divide, I think most of it is ok, but like any chart on political spectrums, there is bound to be lots of room for debate.

I agree that it is too simple to say "I am a Socialist" or "I am a Conservative" fits in too neatly with what is seen on tv.

One can be liberal on social issues but consevative on fiscal issues, or you can be mixed in both or kind of a mixture in many areas of economy, control and policy.

I disagree where it says that, for example Marxists are egalitarian in theory but not in practice, it could happen and there would be overlap with the more leftist side of the chart.

I also disagree that certain liberetarian strands on the right are such in theory and not in practice. Ron Paul type libertertians want almost complete freedom in terms of capital flow (which can be liberterian view) , in effect limiting government to almost non-exitence, but not limiting corperations in the way they do buisness.

Left and Right do have proper attributes, but there can be many disagreements on particulars.

Arkulari
08-21-2011, 08:15 AM
I think I might be in the center-right of the political spectrum, leaning towards Conservatism, not the American concept of Conservatism but more moderate (comes with my religious views and my social-economic background), I respect people's choices (homosexuality, abortion, etc) but I don't share many concepts from the Left (welfare makes people lazy IMO, help them to find their feet but don't support generations of douches to get votes, also I don't like anti religion, atheism is very respectable as long as you don't try to impose it to others...)

I don't like left or right independentists either, I'm quite Nacionalistic but I am not a Monarchist like my father is.

Also, I'd like to say that the Conservatism/Liberalism division that is so strong in the US doesn't really exist in much places around the world, most political parties (at least the big ones) are centre-right or centre-left and people aren't as divided by political views.

sexybeast
08-21-2011, 01:59 PM
I dont really understand conservatism at all, I understand why people personally can be conservative but I dont understand why they would want others to live after their moral code. Same actually goes for socialists/feminists and even some who call themselves liberals, almost all of them think the goverment understands what is good for people and put taxes on alcohol, make laws against drugs and prostitution and even decides what people should be allowed to say in some cases.

I do understand however the prolife moralists because they think human life should be protected even at embryo stage. That is not wanting to decide what morality other people should live after but it is more about questioning what right humans have before they have fully developed human attributes.

sexybeast
08-21-2011, 02:08 PM
I also disagree that certain liberetarian strands on the right are such in theory and not in practice. Ron Paul type libertertians want almost complete freedom in terms of capital flow (which can be liberterian view) , in effect limiting government to almost non-exitence, but not limiting corperations in the way they do buisness.


Surely Ron Paul is kind of far to the spectrum of corporatism for my libertarian view but still he is no more so than any other "globalist socialiberal" politician nowadays. He is a nightmare for banks wanting to limit the whole borrowing minded capitalist economy we got now and abolish the Fed, also unlike other politicians in the USA he has no corporation lobbyist backing him up and doesnt want no money from corporations. How you think the medical insurance companies and banks can swindle their customers like they do? Surely they couldnt be able to without having the law at their side.

Pfloyd
08-21-2011, 02:20 PM
Surely Ron Paul is kind of far to the spectrum of corporatism for my libertarian view but still he is no more so than any other "globalist socialiberal" politician nowadays. He is a nightmare for banks wanting to limit the whole borrowing minded capitalist economy we got now and abolish the Fed, also unlike other politicians in the USA he has no corporation lobbyist backing him up and doesnt want no money from corporations. How you think the medical insurance companies and banks can swindle their customers like they do? Surely they couldnt be able to without having the law at their side.

He wants to remove certain istitutions and would want to repeal certain constitutional amendements, almost all of them related with government regulations, he cannot eliminate them all of course, even a buisness needs some laws to function otherwise they would collapse.

On the civil side however, he is a libertertian.

sexybeast
08-21-2011, 03:01 PM
He wants to remove certain istitutions and would want to repeal certain constitutional amendements, almost all of them related with government regulations, he cannot eliminate them all of course, even a buisness needs some laws to function otherwise they would collapse.

On the civil side however, he is a libertertian.

Well, there is a reason it is called the constitution and it is above political decisions and if you want to go against a constitution start by changing it and not by sneaking around it behind the back of the people.

Business certanly loves the bond with goverment, some big business get their competitors removed and get to go over the law because of political connection, others live by having monopololy on goverment programs like the banks and Federal reserve, the military industry and medicaid programs. Obama's new law that makes it an obligation for everyone to have health insurance is the perfect socialism/corporatist union and this is what Ron Paul stands against.

Personally I am against Ron Paul's stand on resources/land owner ship, as a geolibertarian I am against that the profit from land and natural resources go to private corporations, it should mostly go to the people who live in the surrounding community even if it is operated by private companies. While you should be allowed to get back almost all profit from your invested sweat and blood some few companies shouldnt be allowed to have monopoly over all land and natural resources. Even goverment companies owning oil companies like in Norway and Brazil is preferable in my opinion, even if goverment companies are usually mismanaged because of lack of competition and lazyness that comes from a guarantee to survive from the goverment.

Chip_s_m
08-21-2011, 08:20 PM
Chip_s_m, although I find your idea entertaining, remember the amount of globalisation that has happened and will continue to happen.

I don't see how globalization conflicts with Jeffersonian Democracy. In fact, the increased interactions of peoples with different values and beliefs reinforces the need for governmental choice to reduce tensions. Globalization is wonderful in that it's considerably easier to move to a different jurisdiction than at any point in history. This will only continue to become easier as technology improves, holding governments accountable since their subjects will be able to easily relocate, thereby threatening their source of power and legitimacy.

Then factor in the internet, which is playing a similar role that the invention of the printing press played in the Protestant reformation, the enlightenment, and the end of feudalism. Oppressive governments are in trouble, hence the rise of protests/revolutions of all stripes. This includes the large democratic nation-states that most people hold dearly today.

sexybeast
08-21-2011, 10:41 PM
I don't see how globalization conflicts with Jeffersonian Democracy. In fact, the increased interactions of peoples with different values and beliefs reinforces the need for governmental choice to reduce tensions. Globalization is wonderful in that it's considerably easier to move to a different jurisdiction than at any point in history. This will only continue to become easier as technology improves, holding governments accountable since their subjects will be able to easily relocate, thereby threatening their source of power and legitimacy.

Then factor in the internet, which is playing a similar role that the invention of the printing press played in the Protestant reformation, the enlightenment, and the end of feudalism. Oppressive governments are in trouble, hence the rise of protests/revolutions of all stripes. This includes the large democratic nation-states that most people hold dearly today.

With globalisation comes interests in world goverment and unions with ever greater power that distance the power from the people until they cant even feel their vote is important, they dont even know why they vote and how this effect their life. Power centralised far away by a small group of powerful politicians who have very little in common with the people who vote for them.

A country like Switzerland is much more of a democracy, where power is divided so small communities actively can vote for what matters to them and people feel they are in control of their destiny and no foreign institution can change how the country is run.

Chip_s_m
08-21-2011, 11:11 PM
With globalisation comes interests in world goverment and unions with ever greater power that distance the power from the people until they cant even feel their vote is important, they dont even know why they vote and how this effect their life. Power centralised far away by a small group of powerful politicians who have very little in common with the people who vote for them.

A country like Switzerland is much more of a democracy, where power is divided so small communities actively can vote for what matters to them and people feel they are in control of their destiny and no foreign institution can change how the country is run.

I couldn't agree more :yeah:

Pfloyd
08-21-2011, 11:37 PM
I don't see how globalization conflicts with Jeffersonian Democracy. In fact, the increased interactions of peoples with different values and beliefs reinforces the need for governmental choice to reduce tensions. Globalization is wonderful in that it's considerably easier to move to a different jurisdiction than at any point in history. This will only continue to become easier as technology improves, holding governments accountable since their subjects will be able to easily relocate, thereby threatening their source of power and legitimacy.

Then factor in the internet, which is playing a similar role that the invention of the printing press played in the Protestant reformation, the enlightenment, and the end of feudalism. Oppressive governments are in trouble, hence the rise of protests/revolutions of all stripes. This includes the large democratic nation-states that most people hold dearly today.

I like to call myseld a liberterian-socialist or a left liberterian. I also do not dislike the ideas of a "Jefersonian Democracy" or other form of de-centralization and forms of direct democracy.

I don't support Ron Paul's "liberterianism" by and large.

On the civil side, that is, issues pertaining to US Foreign Policy and "Drug on Wars", I do happen to agree with Ron Paul on a good deal.

As a fiscal president, he would destroy the economy and would seek to privitize almost anything he would be able to.

In any case, none of the current branch of Republican nominees is any way better than Obama. Not that Obama is good at all, but in these times in the US, and Europe too, the choice is between bad and worse.

Caesar1844
08-21-2011, 11:49 PM
Well, I think the more detailed the description of what you believe in, the more you get away from typical "media stereotypes" in any case, having an idea as to where you belong politically has many uses in aligning yourself with people who agree with your views.

In any case "overanalysing" is better than the opposite in this area, which tends to make broad-generalizations and tries to keep people from figuring out what they believe.

In terms of the examples it gives for the divide, I think most of it is ok, but like any chart on political spectrums, there is bound to be lots of room for debate.

I agree that it is too simple to say "I am a Socialist" or "I am a Conservative" fits in too neatly with what is seen on tv.

One can be liberal on social issues but consevative on fiscal issues, or you can be mixed in both or kind of a mixture in many areas of economy, control and policy.

I disagree where it says that, for example Marxists are egalitarian in theory but not in practice, it could happen and there would be overlap with the more leftist side of the chart.

I also disagree that certain liberetarian strands on the right are such in theory and not in practice. Ron Paul type libertertians want almost complete freedom in terms of capital flow (which can be liberterian view) , in effect limiting government to almost non-exitence, but not limiting corperations in the way they do buisness.

Left and Right do have proper attributes, but there can be many disagreements on particulars.
But I don't really care about any of that. I wasn't interested in people's detailed personal philosophies, just which side of the fence they fall down on in a generalistic type of way so that I could compare it to mainstream social demographics. Hence the word 'leanings' and the reference to specific parties as examples.

Pfloyd
08-21-2011, 11:54 PM
But I don't really care about any of that. I wasn't interested in people's detailed personal philosophies, just which side of the fence they fall down on in a generalistic type of way so that I could compare it to mainstream social demographics. Hence the word 'leanings' and the reference to specific parties as examples.

Well this thread has been quite succesful, the only minor criticism would be the examples you gave in the pole do no correlate to reality i.e Democrats are not "Major Left".

The problem then is that some people who would be major left or right would not vote on seeing the examples provided, but it's still a good idea overall. :D

buddyholly
08-22-2011, 12:36 AM
Well this thread has been quite succesful, the only minor criticism would be the examples you gave in the pole do no correlate to reality i.e Democrats are not "Major Left".

The problem then is that some people who would be major left or right would not vote on seeing the examples provided, but it's still a good idea overall. :D

I think he meant ''most common'' when he used the word ''major'' - ie, one of the major parties. In that sense Democrats are Major Left, Greens are Minor Left.

Major Left does not mean ''strongly to the left.''



Having seen that chart you posted, I think this just shows that one needs to state his position on each issue.

GugaF1
08-22-2011, 12:42 AM
I'm a member of the common sense party.

I voted major left just because of there wasn't a real option, but this would be the case right up here. Being Left wing or right wing nowdays, specially in the US, is like a dog running around its tail not getting anywhere and basically stalling on funcionality. Balance in my view is the only reasonable way.

You can't be too far right economically speaking (US case for decades) and not too far left Greece broke type of socialism. In my view a successful country is one which finds a balance between raw capitlaism and popular socialism.

Pfloyd
08-22-2011, 12:49 AM
I think he meant ''most common'' when he used the word ''major'' - ie, one of the major parties. In that sense Democrats are Major Left, Greens are Minor Left.

Major Left does not mean ''strongly to the left.''



Having seen that chart you posted, I think this just shows that one needs to state his position on each issue.

In this case the use of the words "major" or "minor" can be confuing indeed.

In this case, like you said, "most common" is a better use.

I agree, people ought to state there positions, it is easy to say you are centrist or whatever, and then not define what you mean by the term you used (not you in particular, just generally speaking.)

Caesar1844
08-22-2011, 01:05 AM
Major referred to the major parties. It was an attempt to make the poll relatively generic for different countries, most of which have two parties a fair bit bigger than the rest, with one falling roughly on each side of the spectrum.

I have never heard 'major' or 'minor' used to describe the degree of leftism/rightism.

Pfloyd
08-22-2011, 01:08 AM
Most people consider the Democrats centre-left. I'm sure self-styled 'true lefties' don't, but then I'm sure there are also a lot of hardline righties who think that the Republicans are socialist sellouts.

It's all possible in this crazy political scenario.

buddyholly
08-22-2011, 02:14 AM
Major referred to the major parties. It was an attempt to make the poll relatively generic for different countries, most of which have two parties a fair bit bigger than the rest, with one falling roughly on each side of the spectrum.

I have never heard 'major' or 'minor' used to describe the degree of leftism/rightism.

A lot of people here don't have English as a first language, so those words can be confusing.

Pfloyd
08-22-2011, 02:42 AM
English is my first language, and it's true that I have never said I am major left, only "extremely leftist" and the like.

Still, it feels somewhat akward to state things these way, even if these words are meant to describe the size of the party, and not the degree to which you agree with an ideology.

And again, Liberterians can fit in both areas (they can be far left, or rightist) so that also confusing.

In any case, I understand now your reasoning. :)

Caesar1844
08-22-2011, 04:01 AM
In my experience 'major party' tends to refer to a party capable of winning government in its own right, or as the senior partner in a coalition. That was the sense I used it.

Libertarians in the real-world political sense are generally characterised as right wing. I have never actually seen a left wing party that described itself as 'libertarian', even if you might technically ascribe some elements of the philosophy to them.

sexybeast
08-22-2011, 07:30 AM
I like to call myseld a liberterian-socialist or a left liberterian. I also do not dislike the ideas of a "Jefersonian Democracy" or other form of de-centralization and forms of direct democracy.

I don't support Ron Paul's "liberterianism" by and large.

On the civil side, that is, issues pertaining to US Foreign Policy and "Drug on Wars", I do happen to agree with Ron Paul on a good deal.

As a fiscal president, he would destroy the economy and would seek to privitize almost anything he would be able to.

In any case, none of the current branch of Republican nominees is any way better than Obama. Not that Obama is good at all, but in these times in the US, and Europe too, the choice is between bad and worse.

Obama has been a catastrophy to the economy and indebted the youth of USA with 6 trillion dollars of his stimulus packages that have been a complete failure, I cant see how any republican except maybe Sarah Palin could be any worse than him.

Ron Paul would probably end federal programs and let states take care of their own bussiness, I dont think he would privitize everything because congress/senate wouldnt allow it. Ofcourse the market would react violently if he would be able to get rid of the Federal reserve act and go back to gold standard but sadly I think this would be an impossible task for him to get through. He would let big banks fail and not give them any stimulus which would be great damage for the economy but good in the long run. One of the big changes would be if he would get rid of social security and privatisize it, which really is the only reasonable thing to do but hurt alot of people in the process, if it doesnt get through you are simply going to **** the youth who will be paying incredible taxes for a ponzi scheme where there is no chanse they will get anything as they get old themselves.

Pfloyd
08-22-2011, 02:58 PM
Obama has been a catastrophy to the economy and indebted the youth of USA with 6 trillion dollars of his stimulus packages that have been a complete failure, I cant see how any republican except maybe Sarah Palin could be any worse than him.

Ron Paul would probably end federal programs and let states take care of their own bussiness, I dont think he would privitize everything because congress/senate wouldnt allow it. Ofcourse the market would react violently if he would be able to get rid of the Federal reserve act and go back to gold standard but sadly I think this would be an impossible task for him to get through. He would let big banks fail and not give them any stimulus which would be great damage for the economy but good in the long run. One of the big changes would be if he would get rid of social security and privatisize it, which really is the only reasonable thing to do but hurt alot of people in the process, if it doesnt get through you are simply going to **** the youth who will be paying incredible taxes for a ponzi scheme where there is no chanse they will get anything as they get old themselves.

No, I don't agree with that.

The stimulus saved millions of jobs but was clearly not big enough, as pointed out by many economists no least the Nobel winning Paul Krugman.

Since the bailout was so big, it did not do enough to create more jobs that it did, and we will soon see anothere huge recession soon enough.

And eliminating Social Security is in no way a sensible thing to do at all, the super-rich in the United States can afford to pay more.

GE, for example, did not pay taxes last year, and they had over 17 billion dollar profits.

I don't think letting the Banks fail, as much as I lothe them, would be best. A better idea that would not hurt the economy as badly is to re-implement the Glass-Steagle act which would take out the ability of ridiculous speculation on bad/risky loans.

After than more regulation for the banks would be needed, not less. There is not an iota of evidence to support the claims that the markets work well without a hand to guide them.

Another sensible idea would be to significantly reduce military spending, which is absurd in the US.

In any case I don't agree at all that Ron Paul would be better than Obama, even if Obama and pretty much all Republicans are in the pocket of big buisness.

buddyholly
08-22-2011, 03:34 PM
Obama has been a catastrophy to the economy and indebted the youth of USA with 6 trillion dollars of his stimulus packages that have been a complete failure, I cant see how any republican except maybe Sarah Palin could be any worse than him.


Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Huntsman and Newt could all be worse. It would be 4 years of fretting over the evils of gay marriage, abortion and banning prayer in public schools, with the economy ignored as not being essential to true ''American family values''.

Chip_s_m
08-23-2011, 01:21 AM
No, I don't agree with that.

The stimulus saved millions of jobs but was clearly not big enough, as pointed out by many economists no least the Nobel winning Paul Krugman.

Since the bailout was so big, it did not do enough to create more jobs that it did, and we will soon see anothere huge recession soon enough.

There are also numerous economists who argue that the stimulus increased unemployment and that the best thing would've been to not do it in the first place and to reduce spending at the same time. Keynesian economics is dead. Why is it that we're following advice from the same economists who failed to see the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis (including the Chicago school and the disciples of Milton Friedman)? In some cases, these same economists even bear responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. Here's Krugman in 2002:

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman%20mcculley%20bubble&st=cse

Thanks Krugman. Here's the other Paul (Ron) on the floor of the House, also in 2002:

"The special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

"Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged overinvestment in housing."

What part of that statement didn't happen just a few years later? It's an easy call for me regarding whom to take seriously. Here's some more Austrian-school economists who predicted the crisis:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html

The stimulus (and bailouts) absolutely did increase GDP, but it was only able to do so by pumping up malinvestments, just as the credit boom of the previous decade created malinvestments in housing. Those aren't sustainable. The upcoming recession will purge the economy of these unprofitable endeavors that only exist because of artificially cheap funding. Look at Bank of America. Without the bailouts a few years ago it wouldn't even be here. Fortunately, it's looking like it doesn't have much time left based on its recent performance. I also wouldn't be surprised if GM goes bankrupt again within the next few years either.

The Austrian-school's theory of the business cycle explains all of this much better than I ever could (www.mises.org).

Pfloyd
08-23-2011, 01:58 AM
I appreciate your response, and I do agree with some of the things you point out.

Krugman has changed his opinion on this issue, but he is just one voice among many. Several other economists have proposed somewhat simialar measures.

There is no doubt that Ron Paul was right about the crisis which was created in fact, by letting the markets go wild.

But what I am arguing in essence here is that I do not believe at all in the free-market solution to the problem, which is what Ron Paul eventually argues.

It has been demostrated that the de-regulation of the markets starting with the Reagan era initially raised the defecit.

What Ron Paul advocates is simialar to what led to the initial first depression which was virtually no control over the markets. He then further argues, with some reason though not completely true, that the New Deal policies did not help get the US out of the depression.

While it is true that the New Deal in itself did not help the US get out of the depression it did grow the economy year by year (with dips in between) until the US got into WWII which in effect caused the government to take over almost all of private industry in order to create the machinery and stimulate the economy to the point we got out the depression, and this is a fact.

I agree that bad government policy, guided by monetary intersts in the Federal Reserve, which happens to be in bed with Wall Street as is evidenced by the all the CEO's that worked in the Fed and then in Government sectors, can lead to the disastrous conditions that led to this recession.

But to blame the issue solely on the government is to miss the point entirely, which is that the system is corrupt to the point in which government insitutions also become corrupt and intermingled with the people who caused the crisis. To blame the government for "allowing or forcing the companies to do this or that behavior" is failing to blame the forces behind the government decisions.

Now the ultimate solution, in my view, is to create sensible regulations that would prevent this corruption from happening, not creating more space for the companies to do as they wish.

As for the stimulus, there are many ways to twist the information that comes out of it and I surely was not a fan of the bailouts or giving money to the Auto Industry, but if they should go down again it would be there fault, not the government. But to not pass measures to cause the government to move in some direction instead of not doing it is a very bad idea.

It does not make any sense to say that tax cuts and less government interference would increase production when this very trend had been established and followed since the 80's with increasingly worse results.

Of course, one can blame the government for much (as it deserves a lot of criticism) but Wall Street and the Big Buisness get a pass (compared with the gov.) and profits continue to soar.

It does not add up. But free-market adherents will always claim that the system was tampered with too much. The same reasoning was used in the Soviet Union "too much capitalism is causing the communist system to not work properly, etc."

This type of reasoning can go too far.

sexybeast
08-23-2011, 11:24 AM
I appreciate your response, and I do agree with some of the things you point out.

Krugman has changed his opinion on this issue, but he is just one voice among many. Several other economists have proposed somewhat simialar measures.

There is no doubt that Ron Paul was right about the crisis which was created in fact, by letting the markets go wild.

But what I am arguing in essence here is that I do not believe at all in the free-market solution to the problem, which is what Ron Paul eventually argues.

It has been demostrated that the de-regulation of the markets starting with the Reagan era initially raised the defecit.

What Ron Paul advocates is simialar to what led to the initial first depression which was virtually no control over the markets. He then further argues, with some reason though not completely true, that the New Deal policies did not help get the US out of the depression.

While it is true that the New Deal in itself did not help the US get out of the depression it did grow the economy year by year (with dips in between) until the US got into WWII which in effect caused the government to take over almost all of private industry in order to create the machinery and stimulate the economy to the point we got out the depression, and this is a fact.

I agree that bad government policy, guided by monetary intersts in the Federal Reserve, which happens to be in bed with Wall Street as is evidenced by the all the CEO's that worked in the Fed and then in Government sectors, can lead to the disastrous conditions that led to this recession.

But to blame the issue solely on the government is to miss the point entirely, which is that the system is corrupt to the point in which government insitutions also become corrupt and intermingled with the people who caused the crisis. To blame the government for "allowing or forcing the companies to do this or that behavior" is failing to blame the forces behind the government decisions.

Now the ultimate solution, in my view, is to create sensible regulations that would prevent this corruption from happening, not creating more space for the companies to do as they wish.

As for the stimulus, there are many ways to twist the information that comes out of it and I surely was not a fan of the bailouts or giving money to the Auto Industry, but if they should go down again it would be there fault, not the government. But to not pass measures to cause the government to move in some direction instead of not doing it is a very bad idea.

It does not make any sense to say that tax cuts and less government interference would increase production when this very trend had been established and followed since the 80's with increasingly worse results.

Of course, one can blame the government for much (as it deserves a lot of criticism) but Wall Street and the Big Buisness get a pass (compared with the gov.) and profits continue to soar.

It does not add up. But free-market adherents will always claim that the system was tampered with too much. The same reasoning was used in the Soviet Union "too much capitalism is causing the communist system to not work properly, etc."

This type of reasoning can go too far.

Well, in Europe we have much more regulation than the US but the banks still borrow alot of money to countries that wont ever be able to pay back their debts, the culture of debt and bad investments that comes with Keynesian economics, we live in a world were banks actually get rich by borrowing money that doesnt even exist. Banks dont produce anything but they still are the largest private institutions in our economy. Our brightest minds dont want to become engineers or scientists, it is in economics all money is to be won, but most of this money is gained by dirty games and gambling with money that belongs to other people and when it all crashes these instutions are too important to fail so we pay with tax money to save them.

This is a chronic disease in our capitalist markets, radical changes will be needed because this game cant go on forever. In the austrian model for the economy we actually get power to the people, banks cant just print and borrow their money and need to actually own gold to print money. Borrowing gets less excessive and saving is encouraged again, less investment is made but of a better quality. Sure deflation can at times come in this economic model and cause unemployment but at same time never we get the risk of heavy inflation and speculation would greatly be reduced, I think some of the consumer anxiety in our society would also disappear which is more a philosophical issue for me, if people feel money is actually worth saving then they wont be in such a hurry to get rid of money but actually want to produce and not just consume, leading ultimately to a more healthy and productive society.

Sure, youth will have more trouble borrowing money to buy a new house before they have even begun to work, but all this is an illusion from start. We need to get more humble, we need to earn money before we buy things that cost alot. We need to feel work is an investment and not something you need to do to keep up with bills and debts that create anxiety and unhappiness in society.



The stimulus saved millions of jobs but was clearly not big enough, as pointed out by many economists no least the Nobel winning Paul Krugman.

Since the bailout was so big, it did not do enough to create more jobs that it did, and we will soon see anothere huge recession soon enough.

And eliminating Social Security is in no way a sensible thing to do at all, the super-rich in the United States can afford to pay more.

Problem with Krugman and Keynesian aconomics in general is that all solution they have for every problem is creating new bubbles, stimulus package just like the Fed low interest rates in the 00s that led to the housing bubble to recover from the Nasdaq bubble, it is a bubble and the jobs created by stimulus package is an illusion, not something that people actually need. I dont think the goverment is in any way competent to make the right investments that will lead to productivity, all it will do is throw money at a bubble that will burst before or later again and cause heavy unemployment and new dips in the economy, in the process the dollar will fall and people will become poorer and I dont really see any end in sight.

But then again John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead".

We who are still young are to live this collapse caused by economic models that never had an end in sight except catastrophy for whoever lives in the distant future when all collapses, this future is the present of our generation.

Kolya
08-23-2011, 11:49 AM
Been watching a lot of PMQ's with Cameron v Miliband. Quite interesting.

Though I don't support either.

Pfloyd
08-23-2011, 02:12 PM
Well, in Europe we have much more regulation than the US but the banks still borrow alot of money to countries that wont ever be able to pay back their debts, the culture of debt and bad investments that comes with Keynesian economics, we live in a world were banks actually get rich by borrowing money that doesnt even exist. Banks dont produce anything but they still are the largest private institutions in our economy. Our brightest minds dont want to become engineers or scientists, it is in economics all money is to be won, but most of this money is gained by dirty games and gambling with money that belongs to other people and when it all crashes these instutions are too important to fail so we pay with tax money to save them.

This is a chronic disease in our capitalist markets, radical changes will be needed because this game cant go on forever. In the austrian model for the economy we actually get power to the people, banks cant just print and borrow their money and need to actually own gold to print money. Borrowing gets less excessive and saving is encouraged again, less investment is made but of a better quality. Sure deflation can at times come in this economic model and cause unemployment but at same time never we get the risk of heavy inflation and speculation would greatly be reduced, I think some of the consumer anxiety in our society would also disappear which is more a philosophical issue for me, if people feel money is actually worth saving then they wont be in such a hurry to get rid of money but actually want to produce and not just consume, leading ultimately to a more healthy and productive society.

Sure, youth will have more trouble borrowing money to buy a new house before they have even begun to work, but all this is an illusion from start. We need to get more humble, we need to earn money before we buy things that cost alot. We need to feel work is an investment and not something you need to do to keep up with bills and debts that create anxiety and unhappiness in society.




Problem with Krugman and Keynesian aconomics in general is that all solution they have for every problem is creating new bubbles, stimulus package just like the Fed low interest rates in the 00s that led to the housing bubble to recover from the Nasdaq bubble, it is a bubble and the jobs created by stimulus package is an illusion, not something that people actually need. I dont think the goverment is in any way competent to make the right investments that will lead to productivity, all it will do is throw money at a bubble that will burst before or later again and cause heavy unemployment and new dips in the economy, in the process the dollar will fall and people will become poorer and I dont really see any end in sight.

But then again John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead".

We who are still young are to live this collapse caused by economic models that never had an end in sight except catastrophy for whoever lives in the distant future when all collapses, this future is the present of our generation.

I agree this society needs radical changes, but I don't see them coming unless people rise in mass numbers, and maybe that won't be enough.

It's a tough situation.

Blackbriar
08-23-2011, 06:43 PM
How to destroy a party? ask this simple question, and in no time it's Armaggedon...

sammy01
08-23-2011, 07:35 PM
i have always prefered labour, guess it is because i have been brought up with them. even though life is not perfect i could never complain and the uk didn't seem as fucked as it is now. only under the conservatives would we have the riots.

buddyholly
08-23-2011, 08:44 PM
i have always prefered labour, guess it is because i have been brought up with them. even though life is not perfect i could never complain and the uk didn't seem as fucked as it is now. only under the conservatives would we have the riots.

The reason behind riots doesn't happen overnight. It took all those years of Labour, which covers almost all of the rioters lifespans, to breed the generation that thinks getting stuff the easy way is their right.

Like the two young girls who were ''having a laugh'' rioting against the govermment, but didn't know who was governing. Or the lout who robbed the backpack of the bleeding Asian kid. Did the Tories make him do that? Or the guy who killed 3 Pakistanis in his car. Did he become a bad person since the last election?

I find it strange that posters here claim the rioters as Labour types.

sexybeast
08-23-2011, 09:26 PM
i have always prefered labour, guess it is because i have been brought up with them. even though life is not perfect i could never complain and the uk didn't seem as fucked as it is now. only under the conservatives would we have the riots.

My impression was that the conservatives came after 10 years of labour and what they found was a note at the desk "sorry, money is gone".

I dont like either one anyway, but irresponsible goverments living beyond their means are actually making an argument against democracy. It is the same as the banks, short term thinking to be re elected and building careers by promising alot and starting popular programs that is known to not be affordable or sustainable in the long run.

sammy01
08-23-2011, 10:56 PM
i think it is far too easy to say the labour left the tories in the mess, i mean that can be said and used as an excuse for anything. yes labour made mistakes but people respected them and didn't laugh whenever they do anything.

obviously we will never know but i feel confident the country would be in a much better state if labour were still in charge. things were going down the pan with the economy for the last couple of years labour were in power, yet we didn't have rioting and the country like it is.

the current government has no respect from most people.

sexybeast
08-24-2011, 06:40 AM
i think it is far too easy to say the labour left the tories in the mess, i mean that can be said and used as an excuse for anything. yes labour made mistakes but people respected them and didn't laugh whenever they do anything.

obviously we will never know but i feel confident the country would be in a much better state if labour were still in charge. things were going down the pan with the economy for the last couple of years labour were in power, yet we didn't have rioting and the country like it is.

the current government has no respect from most people.

Once again, imagine your wife secretly had shoping and gambling problems, after 10 years you found out you have unpayable debts so you tell your children there will be no new toys, no more filemignon for dinner, no charter travel during holidays and so on. You would become very unpopular but still we all know it isnt your fault.

Labour the last 10 years is the most irresponsable goverment uk ever had, wasting money on mindless the illegal war in Iraq while living beyond their means at home and indebting the youth, debts they wont ever be able to pay back.

Blackbriar
08-24-2011, 11:52 AM
I don't like Tony Blair. in The Thing movie, Blair is a monster.

buddyholly
08-24-2011, 12:00 PM
Of course, remember the Blair Witch project?

sammy01
08-24-2011, 12:29 PM
I don't like Tony Blair. in The Thing movie, Blair is a monster.

Of course, remember the Blair Witch project?

both valid points :lol:

Fujee
08-24-2011, 02:59 PM
Green/Liberal/Labour - so basically left middle left wing

Ilovetheblues_86
08-24-2011, 07:49 PM
I dont really understand conservatism at all, I understand why people personally can be conservative but I dont understand why they would want others to live after their moral code. Same actually goes for socialists/feminists and even some who call themselves liberals, almost all of them think the goverment understands what is good for people and put taxes on alcohol, make laws against drugs and prostitution and even decides what people should be allowed to say in some cases.

I do understand however the prolife moralists because they think human life should be protected even at embryo stage. That is not wanting to decide what morality other people should live after but it is more about questioning what right humans have before they have fully developed human attributes.

To live after a moral code is supposed to direct the human race to development. No one wants to create a generation of alcoholic people, people addicted to sex as fun and creating social/family problems that ditch the best values for the people. We are not machine, we have feelings, and every rule against what is supposedly bad has a history of centuries ago elucidated by many philosophers that studied human behaviour/ health and well-being. So the goverment still has two important functions: to keep the welfare state as a centralized instituion, and also to be the police of good values. But what are good values? One should read philosphy or even psychiatrical studies to undertsand why somethings should be prohibited or at least, dosed.
The government telling what people should do has some roots, off course, in christian and religion values, but wasnt religion and now psychology and sociology studies being overvalued by only economical studies that see everyone could happy by consuming a lot? In the past we didnt have many technological instruments as today, so people only have the field and its crops, and also the religion, but now we are humping in the back of economical development and libertarianism in a ways that is not surprising that your comments about not understanding why people are conservative exist.

The conservatives of today are the Voltaires of the past. If they cant deal with homosexuality, that was because they were in a Christian- Bible influenced society. However, the XIX intelectuals did a great job in telling why drugs and alcohol in excess arent good for you, and thus the government does a fine job in regulating them no?

Ilovetheblues_86
08-24-2011, 07:59 PM
Liberal, by the way.