Jump to content

Political test


Taikugemu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also: HAHA! I outscore you on the secular-fundamentalist scale.

HAHAHAHA! Take this!

polmbog5.jpg

I just found out that you can flag 5 topics as especially important to you! >:D

Also, I did it again because I changed my mind on some of these topics. I guess that is a lot more fitting to me!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am apparently a Neo-Liberal Democrat.

wut

test.thumb.png.37fdcb8d48c446453a779242c

I don't actually know what this means at all. Can you guys help explain my results to me?

Also: "7 percent of the test participators are in the same category"

Edited by Battlechili
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This test was kind of ridiculous, given how vague some of the questions were, but at least it has been a fun thread.

I feel like there were far too few questions to answer to really zero in on correct results. When you have questions open to interpretation, you need to compensate by having many questions over the same subject but with alternate scenarios and different ways of phrasing them. While each category had multiple questions, it was too few and over to many different subjects within the category.

PoliticalTest14792_Result.thumb.png.47f1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few too many co-so-dems in this thread. too busy smellin they're own farts and suckin each others dees while the REAL MEN (bourgeois patriots) get the global economy back on track. outta my country CSD scum

Patriots don't give a shit about "global" eeconomy, just their own country's economy. Liberals (I'm guessing this is using the Brit definition of liberal, which is same as Libertarian in US) are only ones who care about global economy.

I am apparently a Neo-Liberal Democrat.

wut

test.thumb.png.37fdcb8d48c446453a779242c

I don't actually know what this means at all. Can you guys help explain my results to me?

Also: "7 percent of the test participators are in the same category"

Assuming this is using British definitions, "Neo-Liberal" is basically Libertarian (like "Neo-Conservative" is basically right wing fascist), so Neo-Liberal Democrat would be a left leaning libertarian?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am apparently a Neo-Liberal Democrat.

wut

I don't actually know what this means at all. Can you guys help explain my results to me?

Also: "7 percent of the test participators are in the same category"

Neo-liberal is complicated.

At the most extreme, it is advocating a strong state to enforce libertarianism. At the least extreme, it is advocating a free market economy with some social welfare. It really depends on who you ask, where you are asking, and what decade you are asking in.

Democrats advocate democracy.

The quiz probably actually means a republican system when it says that, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got neoliberal democrat too but literally every source on the internet but wikipedia makes it sound like I'm some kind of corporate shill that wants to burn poor people for energy.

Which is stupid because that'd be terribly inefficient and making them run on hamster wheels that power generators would be much better for profits.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am apparently a Neo-Liberal Democrat.

wut

test.thumb.png.37fdcb8d48c446453a779242c

I don't actually know what this means at all. Can you guys help explain my results to me?

Also: "7 percent of the test participators are in the same category"

Beaten by Malletface and Rassah but yeah, neo-liberalism is one of those terms thrown around by the left a lot, sometimes with a really vague definition. At least where I'm at, it emerged as a set of policies in the 1980s that are still popular with major political parties. Usually it involves trade liberalization through the signing of free trade agreements (eg. NAFTA and currently the TPP) to allow capital (material, human, financial, etc.) to move more easily between countries (for example, in the early 1990s a lot of manufacturing plants moved from Canada to Mexico). This put pressure on governments to make their countries as attractive as possible to international corporations. They did this by cutting corporate tax rates, promising subsidies to companies that set up in their territory, and by rolling back labour legislation to keep labour costs low. With lower revenues from these cut tax rates, governments also began to run larger deficits, and have reacted by cutting back on services or privatizing them in order to balance their budgets. Proponents would probably argue this is a good thing. The state should only intervene in the economy to make it more globally competitive; this will attract more businesses which will create economic growth and jobs. The state has no business in creating/administering a welfare state because market forces will provide the services citizens need. There's a lot more that could be said here but I'll leave that to others.

 

Yeah mine broke too. I don't even know shit about politics because I could care less, so I don't know what these results even mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly5ZKjjxMNM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, so many communists here. I can tell most people never cracked open an economics book.

Many of us have been raped by the ultra rich that we just want to see them suffer, bleh not going into the whole arguements Rassah but if Social Democrat is anything like I think it is then it is a Capitalism-Socialism mix which I'm fine with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, so many communists here. I can tell most people never cracked open an economics book.

You do know that on a small scale communes totally work in Europe, right? And they have some of the highest value of living in the entire world?

Just because someone's economical views are different does not mean they are wrong. You need to stop shitting on other people's views, because for them it works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that on a small scale communes totally work in Europe, right? And they have some of the highest value of living in the entire world?

Just because someone's economical views are different does not mean they are wrong. You need to stop shitting on other people's views, because for them it works.

Something something bitcoin something something I'm better than you something something Aruba.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, so many communists here. I can tell most people never cracked open an economics book.

By definition, a social democrat advocates a capitalist system. That rules them out of being a communist.

A cosmopolitan merely believes in a society of mutual respect and shared morality across borders. They believe crimes against humanity are real, they believe in common heritage sites, and they believe people should be allowed to keep independent views on things. Two of three of those things rule them out of being a communist.

Most cosmopolitans also believe that different states, while coming under the same moral rules, should be allowed to exist independently. That rules them out of being a communist.

I'm can tell you've never cracked open an economics text based on some of the stuff you say.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and money, maybe? I rather agree with some of the stuff he goes about describing in there. What about Economics? The Elements of Economics? No. Why would you even touch something influenced by Keynes? What was I thinking?

What about something earlier and a little less Keynesian, like Principles of Economics? Or just less Keynesian, like Human Action: A Treatise on Economics? Or even a critique of Keynes, like The Failure of the "New Economics?" I find the book rather irritating, but he has a few points.

I would ask more, but if you haven't read anything on one of the most important modern schools or anything on one of the major libertarian schools, your finger pointing comes right back.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always two sides to economic policies: the economic consequences and the social consequences. Economics will, in a perfect world, tell you what the effects of a given policy will be. Economics will not and can not tell you whether a given policy is "good" or "bad", because that determination depends on what you're actually trying to achieve in the first place.

The most prominently discussed trade-off is in total wealth versus equality of wealth distribution. Social democrats dislike extreme inequality and will therefore push for forms of wealth distribution that can result in less total wealth and lower productivity. This fundamental choice to potentially sacrifice overall wealth in favor of a more equitable distribution, and its social consequences, is outside of economics. All economics does is tell you what will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand this mindset of "Your society doesn't handle money the same way mine does so you are wrong."

Who the fuck cares how a country handles their economy, if it works for them and the citizens are fine with it then it doesn't make a damn difference. :U

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand this mindset of "Your society doesn't handle money the same way mine does so you are wrong."

Who the fuck cares how a country handles their economy, if it works for them and the citizens are fine with it then it doesn't make a damn difference. :U

That's how a COMMIE thinks!

Do you hate America Lucy? Do you work out your winkie to pictures of Stalin without a shirt? Of course you do you filthy disgusting America hater. Get the fuck out of my sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand this mindset of "Your society doesn't handle money the same way mine does so you are wrong."

Who the fuck cares how a country handles their economy, if it works for them and the citizens are fine with it then it doesn't make a damn difference. :U

Unfortunately, the problem is that it almost never works. It depends on a constant influx of money, that exceeds the actual production of wealth, and thus depends on an ever increasing debt or tax rate. Eventually the system always runs out of other people's money. Why? Because no matter how you spin economic theory, 2+2 can never equal 5 (see Greece and Venezuela for the latest example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the problem is that it almost never works. It depends on a constant influx of money, that exceeds the actual production of wealth, and thus depends on an ever increasing debt or tax rate. Eventually the system always runs out of other people's money. Why? Because no matter how you spin economic theory, 2+2 can never equal 5 (see Greece and Venezuela for the latest example)

The problem with Greece and Venezuela wasn't their economic policies, the problem with those countries was that nobody fucking likes them and wants to support them.

No country can survive without allied support, regardless of their economic policies. If America decided to say "fuck off" to all its allies it would fail just as fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No country can survive without allied support, regardless of their economic policies. If America decided to say "fuck off" to all its allies it would fail just as fast.

Any country that is not dependent on foreign debt can survive (net export countries). These countries (including US) are heavily dependent on foreign countries giving them money to keep their social programs going. As I said, they're running 2+2=5 economics, such only works as long as they get other people's money. So, you're right, those countries failed because no one wants to support them any more, but the reason for that is because they spent too much of other people's money (or in Venezuela's case, confiscated and redistributed it), and no one trusts them any more.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and for the trolls here, Aruba doesn't take bitcoin. But they have a Subway and a Starbucks next to a Starbucks.

Edited by Rassah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, so many communists here. I can tell most people never cracked open an economics book.

I don't think ignorance of economics is the "problem".

The issue is that many economists, despite undoubtedly being brilliant individuals, still haven't come to accept the possibility that maybe---just maybe---everyone isn't going to be receptive to whatever political philosophy that they're hoping will resonate with the prole masses. 

What if a libertarian society works best with libertarian-minded people constituting it?

 

Edited by I Did It For The Cat Girls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This politics thread has been surprisingly civil given the wide range of ideologies.

By definition, a social democrat advocates a capitalist system. That rules them out of being a communist.

A cosmopolitan merely believes in a society of mutual respect and shared morality across borders. They believe crimes against humanity are real, they believe in common heritage sites, and they believe people should be allowed to keep independent views on things. Two of three of those things rule them out of being a communist.

Most cosmopolitans also believe that different states, while coming under the same moral rules, should be allowed to exist independently. That rules them out of being a communist.

I'm can tell you've never cracked open an economics text based on some of the stuff you say.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and money, maybe? I rather agree with some of the stuff he goes about describing in there. What about Economics? The Elements of Economics? No. Why would you even touch something influenced by Keynes? What was I thinking?

What about something earlier and a little less Keynesian, like Principles of Economics? Or just less Keynesian, like Human Action: A Treatise on Economics? Or even a critique of Keynes, like The Failure of the "New Economics?" I find the book rather irritating, but he has a few points.

I would ask more, but if you haven't read anything on one of the most important modern schools or anything on one of the major libertarian schools, your finger pointing comes right back.

Great recs. I'd also like to add that anyone interested in political economy should think about reading Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx's Capital, and both for the same reason. Both authors are trying to understand how the world works and they both have lots of interesting ideas. And those ideas pop up in all kinds of discussions, even today. You don't have to be a communist or a venture capitalist to enjoy them either. If you have a kindle or something, they're considered public domain and available free here: https://www.gutenberg.org/

There's always two sides to economic policies: the economic consequences and the social consequences. Economics will, in a perfect world, tell you what the effects of a given policy will be. Economics will not and can not tell you whether a given policy is "good" or "bad", because that determination depends on what you're actually trying to achieve in the first place.

The most prominently discussed trade-off is in total wealth versus equality of wealth distribution. Social democrats dislike extreme inequality and will therefore push for forms of wealth distribution that can result in less total wealth and lower productivity. This fundamental choice to potentially sacrifice overall wealth in favor of a more equitable distribution, and its social consequences, is outside of economics. All economics does is tell you what will happen.

Nailed it. And since we shifted slightly to econ:

Edited by Pignog
adding shit instead of double posting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This politics thread has been surprisingly civil given the wide range of ideologies.

(Quote)

Great recs. I'd also like to add that anyone interested in political economy should think about reading Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx's Capital, and both for the same reason. Both authors are trying to understand how the world works and they both have lots of interesting ideas. And those ideas pop up in all kinds of discussions, even today. You don't have to be a communist or a venture capitalist to enjoy them either. If you have a kindle or something, they're considered public domain and available free here: https://www.gutenberg.org/

(Quote)

Nailed it. And since we shifted slightly to econ:

(Video)

Keynes might be more well-known if he looked more like that than a Muppet.

The creators of that video clearly like Keynes' ideas, but they certainly understand the Austrian School.

Also, I've read The Wealth of Nations but I've never read Capital. I forgot that it was in the public domain. I might need to get back into reading some of the older stuff; many of these guys wrote right about that time or even had some of their stuff put in the public domain anyway.

 

Edited by MalletFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keynes might be more well-known if he looked more like that than a Muppet.

The creators of that video clearly like Keynes' ideas, but they certainly understand the Austrian School.

Years ago an econ prof forced us to watch that video before our final exam. If I recall the creators made a sequel and are apparently big fans of the Austrian school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago an econ prof forced us to watch that video before our final exam. If I recall the creators made a sequel and are apparently big fans of the Austrian school.

I went through and started the others and they do focus on the Austrian School. It seems like they want it to be an underdog kind of representation or something.

The videos cover both of them pretty well, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think ignorance of economics is the "problem".

The issue is that many economists, despite undoubtedly being brilliant individuals, still haven't come to accept the possibility that maybe---just maybe---everyone isn't going to be receptive to whatever political philosophy that they're hoping will resonate with the prole masses. 

What if a libertarian society works best with libertarian-minded people constituting it?

 

I don't really look at economics as a political field, but rather as a science. Politics is opinions on how things should be, while, due to my finance background, I see economics as how they *will* be if certain factors are established. As if the world is a giant math function, and you can stick in various variables (spend on this, tax that, inflate this), and the end result is basically always pretedermined by that function. That's because I look at wealth and money as a fixed concept, which can't be created out of thin air, and can only be created from labor, thought, or trade. 

So of you pass a tax on something, in my mind that's a disincentive on that something and an incentive to avoid it (e.g. Sanders wants to tax Wall Street trades, which instead of making tons of money will slow down trades and move them overseas). If you pass a social program, it will incentivize the action it encourages and disincentivize competition, and if you try to create more wealth by printing money or borrowing, eventually the math will simply not add up, and the whole thing will come crashing down.

So, I think looking at economics from a political standpoint, or whether it's good or bad, is misguided. It's like trying to politicize gravity and determine if it's good or bad. It just is. And if you try to go against it, it inevitably ends up bad. Especially because the organizations that try to go against it have never in the history of mankind have shown restraint, and always end up taking things too far.

Regarding ignorance of economics, that's what leads people to accept things like higher minimum wage, guaranteed income, high corporate and wealth taxes, and "free" services as good, even though they're not viable long term, or cause more issues than they solve. It's also why most people believe that the size of the wealth pie is fixed, and thus should be equally distributed, instead of understanding that the wealth pie continues growing in size, and although you may have a smaller percent of the overall pie, the piece itself is still getting bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding ignorance of economics, that's what leads people to accept things like higher minimum wage, guaranteed income, high corporate and wealth taxes, and "free" services as good, even though they're not viable long term, or cause more issues than they solve. It's also why most people believe that the size of the wealth pie is fixed, and thus should be equally distributed, instead of understanding that the wealth pie continues growing in size, and although you may have a smaller percent of the overall pie, the piece itself is still getting bigger.

Economic science and political science are social sciences. Economics, though, is an element of politics. You can actually have your cake and eat it too, in this case; that is how language usually has things ending up.

Neither is anywhere near as accurate as the natural sciences, though. If it can be said that we hardly understand biological, chemical, and physical processes, - to name a few - then we can certainly say societal processes are currently beyond our grasp. A key element that makes a science viable and useful is that it can make statistically reliable predictions; this is something economic science cannot do at this point.

But I do not think an ignorance of economic science "leads people to accept things like higher minimum wage, guaranteed income, high corporate and wealth taxes, and "free" services as good," though.

  • Keynes himself, while not nearly supporting everything you described, was educated in mathematics and economics at Eton and Cambridge.
  • Most liberal economists never received degrees in economics; their degrees were usually in political science or specifically in law and they rarely studied mathematics in depth, something you have implied is important within studies of economics. Despite most of the great liberal thinkers being dead for many years, many modern followers of the liberal schools share this political tendency.
    • Examples of these types of "economists" are Hayek, Machlup, Lachmann, Weber, von Mises, and von Wieser.
  • The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the U.S. executive branch subscribes to some of the things you mention, and he received a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard where his research focused on things like taxes, wages, and "'free' services" like Social Security.

I am not saying one could not easily find counterexamples to all of this, but I am saying that one does not have to be ignorant to disagree with you. Economic science as a social science is not even much over a century old, and hardly anything within the macroeconomic branches of it can said to be certain. We fail to even succeed at reliably making the smallest of predictions, and that reveals that all schools and traditions know relatively little.

Also,

It's like trying to politicize gravity and determine if it's good or bad. It just is. And if you try to go against it, it inevitably ends up bad. Especially because the organizations that try to go against it have never in the history of mankind have shown restraint, and always end up taking things too far.

We have actually done great things by politicizing gravity, and one of the defining American moments of the twentieth century was had because those who wished to act against it did even though "it just is."

Something being fact does not mean we are restricted from manipulating it to our benefit. If it was, we would live a rather dull existence.

On another note, I would like to see how some of the prominent economists place on this weird little test.

Edited by MalletFace
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...