Political test

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, MalletFace said:

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.

I guess you would consider anthropology and sociology soft sciences too? I don't agree at all that economics can't make statistically reliable predictions. When you pay everyone equally for work, as USSR did, you end up with a lack of rice discovery for labor quality, and shoddy workmanship. When you create price floors for labor, or price ceilings for rental property, you end up with shortages (despite the oft claims that minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, we have lost our manufacturing sector, and are suffering from pretty high unemployment). When you nationalize industries, you eliminate their competition and remove profit as a performance feedback, turning them into shitty services (e.g. oil companies in Russia and Venezuela, or police in US). And when you run a deficit to a certain limit, you either collapse your economy due to not being able to pay for services, or your currency for having to print it to continue to pay for those services (Greece, Argentina). All of those failures were predicable. Just because Keynesians had their fingers in their ears, claiming that no, they can make economics do what they want while ignoring math and sociology/incentives, doesn't mean the economy won't find its natural state eventually.

 

2 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Also,

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."

But we didn't act against it in that example, we understood it and used it to our advantage. It toon understanding of gravity, orbits, and what it takes to break orbit to accomplish that. Our economic policies seem to be the equivalent of getting into a tub, whacking it on the back with a hammer, and claiming that if you do this often and hard enough you can fly.

The main difference between Keynesians and Austrians, from my experience, is that Austrians look at the whole of economic history, look at all the examples of failure, look at all the variables (at least as many as they can consider), and try to figure how how things will flow should certain things be changed in certain ways, avoiding failures we learned from history. Keynesians, on the other hand, seem to want to finagle things into directions they can't go into, and then try to come up with theories for why it will work (or why a more "natural" system won't work) after the fact. And if you point out why they're are issues, or point to historical examples, they either ignore them, or dismiss the issues as "acceptable."

It's the only reason I can think of for people out there still supporting communism despite USSR and pre-capitalist China ("they just didn't do it right! "), claiming that it's better if we grow slowly but equally instead of rapidly despite examples of such countries being crap compared to those who don't do this, and examples of " slow growth" often leading to everyone dragging everyone else down, and for continued misconceptions about things deflation and deflationary spirals, which have led to global inflationary policies and I believe the reason for massive amounts of public and personal debt, and such a huge divide between the rich and the poor.

1 hour ago, Pignog said:

I think I found the problem.

What, that I can process multiple complex scenarios as a single intertwined idea, and keep track of what minor effects will cause what kind of ripples in the whole system, and you can't?

[Taikugemu]

24 minutes ago, Rassah said:

What, that I can process multiple complex scenarios as a single intertwined idea, and keep track of what minor effects will cause what kind of ripples in the whole system, and you can't?

Stop jerking off in public, it's rude.

[Brass]

On 12/2/2015 at 4:46 PM, Sir Gibby said:

whoops

look Ivan! We are of OPPOSITE 

http://www.politicaltest.net/en/test/result/15419

[Vitaly]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

When you nationalize industries, you eliminate their competition and remove profit as a performance feedback, turning them into shitty services (e.g. oil companies in Russia and Venezuela, or police in US).

Is it just your opinion or... ?

[KookyFox]

well no surprises here: I'm a cosmopolitan social democrat

 

Nothing on the right of the graph, all arranged in somewhat of a Gauss curve... Nice score I'd say ^^

Edited December 8, 2015 by KookyFox

[Pignog]

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

 

We tried a lot of what you're suggesting in the gilded age, and it led to some of the most unequal societies we've ever seen. "The world" isn't some formula to solve, it's very complicated, and you must realise this on some level since you've brought up anthropology and sociology as legitimate sources of knowledge (unless you ignore any research that doesn't support your point). But by all means, remove the minimum wage and every advance fought for by the labour movement, I'm sure they'll sit idly by and let their living standards collapse while your maths works itself out.

[Rassah]

16 hours ago, Vitaly said:

Is it just your opinion or... ?

I have you three examples (oil companies in Russia, oil companies in Venezuela, police force in US). Look into any business that was nationalized. It always goes to shit, because it always becomes a monopoly, where it has no reason to improve or provide a good service.

 

9 hours ago, Pignog said:

We tried a lot of what you're suggesting in the gilded age, and it led to some of the most unequal societies we've ever seen.

On the contrary, the late 1800's had the highest rise in prosperity and income in history.

 

9 hours ago, Pignog said:

"The world" isn't some formula to solve, it's very complicated, and you must realise this on some level since you've brought up anthropology and sociology as legitimate sources of knowledge (unless you ignore any research that doesn't support your point). But by all means, remove the minimum wage and every advance fought for by the labour movement, I'm sure they'll sit idly by and let their living standards collapse while your maths works itself out.

I didn't say it's a formula to solve, I said it's follows a formula. Someone does something, a specific effect happens as a result. E.g. a price floor on jobs is implemented, a shortage of jobs results. Since some types of work always needs to get done, a black market in jobs develops (illegal immigrant work), and the employees are searched for elsewhere (outsourcing). Totally predictable. But, of course, you'll still hear people claim "Minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment!" while looking at only short term limited effects.

Also, minimum wage wasn't won by the labor movement, it was won by the eugenics movement. The 8 hour work day and weekends? Set up by corporations (Ford), also not labor.

[TheGreatFanatic]

Here's mine:

http://www.politicaltest.net/en/test/result/15779

I truly don't give a f8ck about politics, but I did the test out of boredom =P

Edited December 9, 2015 by TheGreatFanatic

[WolfyAmbassador]

http://www.politicaltest.net/en/test/result/15787

[Vitaly]

45 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I have you three examples (oil companies in Russia, oil companies in Venezuela, police force in US). Look into any business that was nationalized. It always goes to shit, because it always becomes a monopoly

Really don't know about Venezuela or US, but my work (in 100% private company by the way) involves some interaction with domestic gas and oil suppliers and:

1. State-owned companies aren't different from private in terms of efficiency

2. Market isn't a monopolized. There are 3 largest producers, plus each oil and gas mining region has their own companies.

[Crazy Lee]

http://www.politicaltest.net/en/test/result/16087

Wow, look, I'm a CSD... I'm so glad to be a sheep and fit in with the herd here so well.

Also, I noticed little boxes to the right of each question that said "Ungewichtet", which means "unweighted", if you click on it you get gewichtet which is weighted. The test was originally in german and they didn't translate everything. There's a finite number of "weights" you can add, 6 or 8 or so. I tried adding them to every question I felt strongly about and ran out of them quick.

 

On 12/6/2015 at 4:26 PM, Lucyfish said:

He looks like he knows how to tickle a pussy

He'd certainly tickle a lot of pussy with that bushy mustache of his.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Crazy Lee

[Aresh]

I dont know what any of this means

 

[Half-Note]

Old thread, but I decided to redo the test.

So I'm a capitalist now. :3

[Revates]

I decided to also redo the test because I didn't realize you could emphasize certain answers.

So that's my old one:

New one:

[Pignog]

if i can't shitpost i want no part in your revolution

[Ves]

Hey, glad I put that 15 minutes into the test

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ves
shitty image link didnt work

[Pignog]

now you'll never know who to vote for, might as well smash the state

[Jerry]

"Whoops, looks like something went wrong."

How lovely.