babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » political compass

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: political compass
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 04 July 2008 01:19 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I noticed just how many of the world leaders are on the right and authoritarian...gee what a surprise,
harper is considered almost moderate.

Where are you

pdf on a new political compass

Perhaps if you scroll near the borrom of the PDF it shows political compatibility, This maybe where the greens are taking their cue on the 'not left not right, but straight ahead.' As noted in the chart big business and greens occasional allies.

People might want to save the planet but allying with big business won't let it happen, as the chart implies. At every turn green is hrdpressed to e independant. The only reason BB likes gren is it sees the marketing green in it.

economic -9.75
social-7.18

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 04 July 2008 01:35 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've taken that little test before a few years ago. They have updated the questions but I still end up where someone with my Screen Name should be. Econ.L/R -8.8 Social -7.38. Those numbers are because I "strongly" disagree rather than just disagree with all their right wing propositions.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 04 July 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was about as libertarian as dalai lama but further left economicly. the 10 question one had me slightly authoritarian but almost as left as possible.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 July 2008 02:45 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 July 2008 03:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every time I do this test (every couple of years or so) I get more left-wing and more libertarian.

Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 04 July 2008 04:45 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I came up as -8.38 on the economic left/right scale and as -5.95 on the libertarian/authoritarian scale, so compared to some of you folks I must seem like a raving Stalinist. Maybe it's because of the way I answered this question:
quote:
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

I answered "agree", because that is an advantage- just not a big enough advantage to outweigh the well known disadvantages of such a state.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 04 July 2008 04:49 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It might be fun to do an analysis of the political position of the test itself.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 04 July 2008 04:54 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
It might be fun to do an analysis of the political position of the test itself.

I would guess they define center as the 50th percentile.

I was about -1 and -1 the last time.

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 July 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

The first time I took this test a few years ago my scores looked like Michelle's. I've moderated. I know. Sell-out.

I probably would have been more moderate still if they had a middle option between agree and disagree; I understand they want to force you to take a position but on some questions I was thinking well, that depends . . .


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 04 July 2008 05:03 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Economic: -5
Social: -3

It usual bumps around a bit, but it is always in the range where it is here. One time I had a weird fluctuation where I ended up E: -6, S: 2. Never could explain that one.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 July 2008 05:13 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

And I would say, after taking the survey, it would be "their", the creators, 50 percentile.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 04 July 2008 05:42 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I realize I was unclear. I think the test creators' opinions are obvious enough. I was thinking of an analysis of the way their assumptions drive the questions and determine and characterize the possibilities.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 04 July 2008 05:54 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
It might be fun to do an analysis of the political position of the test itself.

No kidding. I gave up at the first question:

quote:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 July 2008 05:56 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's absurd, Stephen. Unions, churches, bowlings leagues, etc. have interests. You're being obtuse and doctrinaire, and it's beneath you.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 04 July 2008 06:31 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Their members, yes. But who is a member of a corporation?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 July 2008 07:44 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well I'm sold. We can disband CFIB and any other business lobby group because they apparently have no interests to lobby for! Wonderful news.

But let's not do this here. We'll leave this thread for the diversion it's intended to be.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
kingblake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3453

posted 04 July 2008 08:05 PM      Profile for kingblake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know why anyone disputes the science of this compass. Obviously you can extrapolate someone's ideology based on whether they 'keep themselves busy with cheerful things' when troubled are totally right-wing sellouts. It's just intuitive. And don't get me started on those Trots who believe in astrology.
From: In Regina, the land of Exotica | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 July 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hahaha. I agree, kb. but still, it is diverting, no? Et ça fait trop longtemps qu'on s'est pas parlés mon ami!
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 04 July 2008 08:58 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have The Political Compass on my Facebook. My political compass score shows as:

Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
skarredmunkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11117

posted 04 July 2008 11:38 PM      Profile for skarredmunkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Econ -7.5, Soc -7.49

Stephen Harper is about as "fascist" as the Pope (and more right-wing)!


From: Vancouver Centre | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
genstrike
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15179

posted 07 July 2008 01:13 PM      Profile for genstrike   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I got it on my facebook... I got ec -9.75 and soc -9.49

But I think that this thing completely breaks down when you get towards the edges because at that point it is pretty much only measuring how liberal you are with "strongly agree" vs. just "agree"

Also, although it is fun to compare and see who wins (is the closest to the bottom left), I think that if you need an internet quiz to identify yourself politically... yeah

I have heard criticisms that the test has a right-libertarian bias in terms of both the questions and the labeling of the axes. I have seen some similar quizzes where the axes were labeled something like "social freedom" and "economic freedom" (a term which has been completely butchered by the right). Predictably, because I do not support corporate fascism, and do support workers rights, that means I do not support economic freedom...


From: winnipeg | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 07 July 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.

You might want to tell a few lawyers about that. Corporations have the same rights as individuals, they just don't have any responsibilities like people do. The question makes perfect sense.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 07 July 2008 01:28 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.


Gee I wish that our courts interpretation of our Constitution agreed with you. Corporations should not be people but they are in our system. Their interest are fully protected under our legal system and these identities without interests as you seem to think regularily get injunctions to shut down citizens protests because those interests are being impacted by the protests. Tell the Lubicon that oil companies have no interests.

The problem you appear to be having is you see everything through a glass darkly. You should let the light from other disciplines shine in. Try reading some political studies or law before you determine that corporations have no interests.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 July 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Corporations are not people, but since the 1980's corporations have won more entitlements and rights enjoyed than most of us regular people can lay claim to. And our finite fossil fuels and natural resources(except for Canadian softwood and some other things) can more easily cross the Can-Am border than Canadian citizens are able to. Brian Baloney's advertisements about free movement of people across our international border was just a sample of the pack of lies about "free trade" with the elephant.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 07 July 2008 03:24 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So Fidel where are you on the compass?
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 July 2008 03:40 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
-10.0 -7.5

And if I had to choose musicians on their list of classical artist on the right and left: Ludwig van, Tchaikovsky and Mozart over Wagner and Strauss and those other guys, probably. They should put some contemporaries on the chart. That would be interesting to know.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201

posted 07 July 2008 05:13 PM      Profile for Dogbert     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.


Wouldn't it make sense, then, to answer "strongly disagree", since you disagree with even the way the question is being asked?


From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 July 2008 05:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the OP: "The only reason BB likes gren is it sees the marketing green in it."

Who iz dis BB?

The only question I didn't understand as to why it was included in this quiz is: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

My score: Libertarian Left

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 07 July 2008 05:56 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by genstrike:
I have heard criticisms that the test has a right-libertarian bias in terms of both the questions and the labeling of the axes. I have seen some similar quizzes where the axes were labeled something like "social freedom" and "economic freedom" (a term which has been completely butchered by the right). Predictably, because I do not support corporate fascism, and do support workers rights, that means I do not support economic freedom...

I took them to be fairly left wing overall, if only because their "centre" (the origin of the graph) is more left and more libertarian than the points where they classify most of the political figures that they assign values to.

Speaking of right wing libertarians, many of the folks at Kitco Forums seem to think the whole thing is some kind of New World Order plot.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 July 2008 11:53 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.90

From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 July 2008 06:04 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.


I think the professor is trying for humour.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 July 2008 06:21 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thinks so, too.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 July 2008 09:12 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't see how you could tell he was just joking. Me thinks he is afraid to find out where his views put him on the compass.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 08 July 2008 09:22 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I don't see how you could tell he was just joking. Me thinks he is afraid to find out where his views put him on the compass.

I don't think he was joking. But while I don't agree with his particular criticism, I do share his disdain for "the compass". It tells you how a liberal would evaluate you politically. I suppose under certain conditions that might be fun


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 July 2008 09:26 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Because Stephen Gordon is much too bright to seriously argue corporations have no interests when, in fact, their primary interest is clearly and succinctly defined: to maximize profits for shareholders. From that flows a river of supporting interests from low tax regimes, to non-existent environmental regulations, to the socialization of risk and the privatization of benefit.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 11:55 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aren't shareholders part of humanity?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 July 2008 12:10 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Aren't shareholders part of humanity?
In my opinion buying shares in Haliburton cancels your claim to being part of humanity.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So if someone out there is contributing to a pension plan that holds Haliburton shares, they should be put to a painful, humiliating death? After all, they've forfeited their basic human rights by setting aside their humanity.

Maybe I should check to see what the Caisse de dépot is doing with my QPP contributions. If everyone in Quebec is to be put to death, then I might want to consider moving.

eta: Is there any corporation whose activities are sufficiently non-evil that buying its shares doesn't merit the death sentence?

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 July 2008 12:43 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So if someone out there is contributing to a pension plan that holds Haliburton shares, they should be put to a painful, humiliating death? After all, they've forfeited their basic human rights by setting aside their humanity.

Maybe I should check to see what the Caisse de dépot is doing with my QPP contributions. If everyone in Quebec is to be put to death, then I might want to consider moving.

eta: is there any corporation whose activities are sufficiently non-evil so that buying there shares doesn't merit the death sentence?

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]



Gee wonderful debating style. No I never said that. And if someone's pension plan is buying war stocks the members of the plan should speak up. As for the CPP crap that some economists pushed on us I still fight that misuse of my money.

I for one try to vilify people for their decisions not decisions made in their name because otherwise the "leader of the free world" speaks for me.

And I will ask you Sir not to ever fucking imply that I am in favour of the death penalty for any reason. Keep your personal insults to yourself and try to stick to political discourse.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:19 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what fate awaits those who abandon their humanity?

And as for death sentences, how many kazillions of non-humans has your immune system killed off?

eta: You see what happens when you start taking rhetoric at face value? That's why I gave up on that political compass thingy at the first question.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

eta: Is there any corporation whose activities are sufficiently non-evil that buying its shares doesn't merit the death sentence?


That's right, we need to send a message to warfiteering corporations and the world's oppressors that they have nothing to fear from Canadians. More no-bid Pentagonian free market voodoo for us please. And our stoogeocrats are happy to look the other way.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 July 2008 01:25 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Because Stephen Gordon is much too bright to seriously argue corporations have no interests when, in fact, their primary interest is clearly and succinctly defined: to maximize profits for shareholders. From that flows a river of supporting interests from low tax regimes, to non-existent environmental regulations, to the socialization of risk and the privatization of benefit.

The primary interest of corporation is to maximize the next bonus package for the CEO and the board of directories, an interest which is in practice not parallel with maximizing the interests of the shareholders.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 July 2008 01:27 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aren't shareholders part of humanity?

No, they sold out humanity for self-aggrandizement. But the question is neither here nor there. Are you seriously arguing that corporations have no interests including the profit motive?

quote:
So if someone out there is contributing to a pension plan that holds Haliburton shares, they should be put to a painful, humiliating death? After all, they've forfeited their basic human rights by setting aside their humanity.



Interestingly, tens of millions of people have, and do, face painful, humiliating deaths at the hands of global capitalism having forfeited their humanity by virtue of an inability to pay for food, or water or housing or clothing or medical care. Your fantasy actually highlights the ugly face of global capitalism whereby shareholders couldn't give a flying crap about the real needs of real humans so much as the value of their portfolios.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:28 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No, they sold out humanity for self-aggrandizement.

So what fate awaits them?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 July 2008 01:34 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

So what fate awaits them?


They are to be sentenced to ten years of economics lectures.

I was glad to hear that you can equate the murder of humans with the murder of viruses or what ever it is my immune system kills on a regular basis. It is that kind of thinking that I believe is inherent in your academic discipline and it is why I like to mock it for fun. So how do the entrails look this n morning, should I buy or sell?


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:

The primary interest of corporation is to maximize the next bonus package for the CEO and the board of directories, an interest which is in practice not parallel with maximizing the interests of the shareholders.


That may be the primary corporate interest, but all of their rights are ultimately granted by democratic society under which they allegedly serve everyone's best interests. Or at least that's what there mega-million dollar advertising would have us believe.

So far they've managed to hoodwink world leaders into believing their monopolizing interests and the interests of billions of people are one and the same.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 July 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

So what fate awaits them?


This isn´t a Christian site Stephen.

I don´t think anyone will argue they´ll burn in hell for all eternity for being mean people. A lot of us like to believe that being and doing good is a valid end in itself.

It´s certainly a prisoner´s dilemma:

Regardless of what others are doing, I´m personally better off from a utilitarian point of view buying Haliburton shares, which will do doubt go up and up and up. And that´s true of everybody. But we´re all better off if nobody buys shares in Haliburton.

I think it´s called the tragedy of the commons in Economics.

The fate that awaits us all for allowing such a world is a less good world with less equality, less opportunity, et cetera. Since the bible is false the punishment will not be doled out in a fair manner.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:38 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I was glad to hear that you can equate the murder of humans with the murder of viruses or what ever it is my immune system kills on a regular basis.

Remember what you said upthread?

quote:
In my opinion buying shares in Haliburton cancels your claim to being part of humanity.

I don't make that equation; you do. You are the one claiming that you don't think that shareholders in Haliburton (and presumably many other corporations) are human.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 08 July 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stephen, you must admit that you deliberately misread the question. It is clearly termed not for literal effect but with what is commonly meant when talking about 'humanity' in an economical context. Part of the answer means you have to interpret the question in a certain way. I agree with RosaL, and perhaps yourself, that it would be interesting and instructive to pursue the political content of such questions, but proceeding as you have done is needlessly provocative, wouldn't you agree? Now that you've got the response you wanted, can you stop playing?

Your response is about as humourless as mine would be if I responded incredulously to every person who used the popularly misused phrase 'begging the question' with a direct object.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:42 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. If anything, I read the question with more care than its authors wrote it.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 July 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what fate awaits them?

I think they should have to live on $2 a day in a nation wracked by drought, corrupt government, violence, and have the opportunity to improve their lives by working under armed guard for 12 hours a day gluing rubber soles to shoes, without benefit of protection, for export to Western markets. And after that 12 hours labour they should know the joy of returning home to malnourished children drinking filthy, untreated water. Then they too could celebrate global capitalism as so many know it.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How many of us here have stakes in in no-bid Pentagon corporations with widely-held shares?

And just how many key sectors of the American economy are majority foreign-owned and controlled by Canadian pension funds or even independently wealthy Canadians besides none whatsoever?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 08 July 2008 01:50 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
No. If anything, I read the question with more care than its authors wrote it.

Perhaps, but you are still willfully ignoring the intended meaning of the question which is plain as day to anyone ever in a semi-political discussion. How would you rephrase the question, if we can assume the authors' original intent?


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 July 2008 01:54 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stephen it is those leaps that you keep making. Given your background it is understanable but I'll try to correct your misinterpretation. When I said that buying Haliburton shares causes people to lose their humanity I was serious. I also think that mass murderers like Carla Holmoka lose their humanity when they perpetrate crimes agains others. However unlike your suggestion I do not believe that because someone has lost their humanity that they should be executed. If I did I would be displaying the same lack of humanity.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:57 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So ... you can lose you humanity and still be human?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 01:59 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
Perhaps, but you are still willfully ignoring the intended meaning of the question which is plain as day to anyone ever in a semi-political discussion. How would you rephrase the question, if we can assume the authors' original intent?

Who can say what the 'intended meaning' is? As it's written, it assigns 'non-human' status to shareholders - including everyone who contributes to, or benefits from, a pension fund.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 08 July 2008 01:59 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a child's game.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 08 July 2008 02:06 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's my point.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 02:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Corporations Are Not Persons by Ralph Nader and Carl J. Mayer (U.S.)

quote:
Our Constitutional rights were intended for real persons, not artificial creations. The Framers certainly knew about corporations but chose not to mention these contrived entities in the Constitution For them, the document shielded living beings from arbitrary government and endowed them with the right to speak, assemble and petition.

Today, however, corporations enjoy virtually the same umbrella of constitutional protections as individuals do. They have become, in effect, artificial persons with infinitely greater power than humans. This constitutional equivalence must end.


National Security, Corporate Security, or Human Security?

quote:
The Ethos of the Nation State, essentially an anthropocentric world view, holds that Nation States are comprised of Government, Industry and People, who work together to compete with other Nation States. The Nation State formed the baseline structure for economists from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to Keynes’ General Theory.

The Ethos of Corporatism, at the other end of this spectrum, holds that, under the doctrine of fiduciary responsibility, quarterly monetary returns to shareholders are paramount.

People and the environment are thus viewed as “factors of production”. Any adverse effects on people or the environment are treated as “externalities” and ignored as being outside the corporatist world view.

With these vastly different models of cultures in mind, let us briefly examine the current global forces at play, together with their consequences.

The Evolution of the present Global Economic System

Let us pick up the threads of the current tide at the time of the 1929 Stock Market crash and Great Depression.

Germany under Adolf Hitler adopted the strategy of creating a totalitarian militaristic state creating employment by building up German armaments and armed forces which led to World War II


Capitalists have no vision for humanity. They want to believe billions of human beings are, like them, just one-dimensional prisoners of our own self-interested greed.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 08 July 2008 06:18 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tend to not even look at 'the good professors' answers because he is so economic blinded by the Milton Friedman the push in class that he can't see the forest from the tress. When I took Economics, free market economics got the largest time during class and stressed at how much better of a system it was than a command economy like socialism and communism.
After entering the real world, I learned that the barter system is the real system but it only applies to the richest people on the planet.
Here they use near slave labour(as serfs actually had more money than we do in comparison of landholding lord to the common poor) to build empires and then trade to each other for political favour, like the no bid contracts going on. If there is no bid, how is that a free market? It isn't but that doesn't fit in the profs version of hard right economics. But spending money on bombs makes more sense than making books, making bullets is better than buildings. You see in capitalism the only way the economy stays ahead is if a population increases, or the product is so disposable that you always need more of it. Bullets fall in the disposable category and schools don't.
And without all them evil immigrants our country would be falling in consumption as our population decreases along with our real income(on the decline since the rightwingers took office in the 70's).
But hey don't forget to put your money into banks, oil, and the military as they continue to fuck over anyone that doesn't have money.
Hey steve, do you realize that some of us don't have pensions, I don't , no RRSP's and the CPP would be better off if it just used it's money to lend to small business start ups as they are better for the economy(canadas, not the US of A) as a whole and would have a better return than these downsizing megacorps who's entire share price is based on speculation, instead of the products and procedures of the company itself.

From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We haven't had real communism yet. Gladio terrorists and Murder Inc. made sure of it.

Leave it to the market kapitalism fell flat on its derriere twice in the last century. The first was in 1929 America, and U.S. voters refused to tolerate it after 30 years of real world implementation.

The second time laissez-failure flopped was in Chile after just sixteen years in the test lab. Again it failed without any particular outside forces working against them in what were near-perfect laboratory conditions.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 July 2008 07:19 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We haven't had real communism yet.

Oh good one!

We haven't had paradise yet, either.

If you have nothing but murder to show for your communism, after about one hundred years, shouldn't you just grow out of it?


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 08 July 2008 07:25 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice red baiting again Jeff. Totalitarianism in any form doesn't work. I can point out how well capitalism has worked out as well. Umm 50 million people with no health care, another 30 million with not enough coverage, sounds like paradise to me.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

If you have nothing but murder to show for your communism, after about one hundred years, shouldn't you just grow out of it?


I'm saddened to have to tell you that the experiment in democratic capitalist India alone has produced more skeletons than the entire history of communism everywhere. And that's according to economist Amartya Sen's figures from just 1947 forward, Jeff. It's a monstrous ideology that snuffs its most vulnerable like they were so many leftover widgets - a monstrous ideology. I think if we knew the sum total number of skeletons in kapitalism's closet, it would be truly breathtaking.


quote:
According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4

Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa


Those tens of millions of children were never given the chance to grow out of anything. They live miserable, shitty fucking lives. Short lives, and they die in agony and excruciating pain. They are sacrificial lambs to a murderous ideology, Jeff.

That's a holocaust of anywhere from 10 to 11 million children alone, and that's each and every year with Swiss precision. You'd think the fucking dummies would go back to the drawing board now and again in search of something that does work. Grow up? I think that's terrible irony on your part, Jeff.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 08 July 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ahem.

So, guys, how was the time off? Do anything fun? Read any good books?

Could you just start a Cuba thread and keep it in there this time 'round?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 08 July 2008 08:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You'll notice I mentioned Cuba sparingly, at least in this thread, before Jeff decidesd he can't help himself. Of course, if there was a developing world capitalist success story, you can bet someone would be pointing that out to us on a fairly steady basis. But there isn't one, and no one does.

It's Jeff who prefers to compare thirdworld capitalist Indja, a perpetually underdeveloped country in perpetual state of chaos and trading freely for decades, with the current state of tiny socialist Cuba.

In democratic capitalist India:

quote:
22% of 11 million global child deaths and 30% of global neonatal deaths take place.

Infant mortality rate (under 1, per 1000 live births), 2005
56

That's awful! They need socialized medicine in India and America.

In socialist Cuba:

quote:
Infant mortality rate (under 1, per 1000 live births ), 2006
5

Capitalism is the kiss of death for millions every year.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 09 July 2008 04:18 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is awesome! I have it on record that corporations have no interests. Thank you, professor.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 July 2008 11:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's right. Corporations can be thought of perpetual dole recipients and have a bad habit of committing massive welfare and sometimes accounting fraud. Their lobbyists bribe our democratically elected politicians and fund right-wing think tanks setting the agenda for Liberal senate discussions on social policy and the ecomomy. They pollute and kill workers by unsafe and toxic work environments, and use up precious resources in producing mountains of plastic widgets with built-in obsolescence, only to be thrown on capitalist scrapheaps of time. Other than that I have no real beef with capitalist parasites.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca