46 posts shown.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...=5.12&soc=0.67It would be quite fascinating to see how everyone else's political compass has shifted over the years. I was just playing around with this, and while my economic views have always leaned toward the right, my social stance has definitely migrated; if memory serves, I used to be somewhat libertarian, but now I find myself leaning slightly more toward the authoritarian side. It’s funny, though, because there are so many instances where you're forced to choose between two options that don't quite capture your true feelings perfectly.
EDIT: Alright, I went through the test one more time, tweaking a few answers where I felt indecisive, and it actually yielded a different result entirely.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...=0.00&soc=0.31
Jessica Smith11 said:I suppose the logic here is something like: a massive corporation gets $100 million because they employ 1,000 people, while a small business only gets $1 million because they only have 10 employees. Oh, the injustice! Why did the little guy only get a million! 🙂
That’s pretty much the gist of it. Honestly, starks keeps chanting this same tired mantra all over this forum, insisting that everything is somehow the government's doing. They act like an entrepreneur can build a massive empire from scratch entirely on their own, but according to them, the credit belongs solely to Washington—whether it's because of a single government contract, a tiny tax break, or some other minor incentive. It’s becoming quite exhausting to read, really. In my view, if a private citizen does 99% of the heavy lifting, it's a bit much to claim that the remaining 1% provided by the state is the true reason for their success.
hollowhawk412 said:That's just not true... unlike you, I've actually spent time working within large corporations...
I've already provided plenty of concrete examples...
Someone else is the one talking nonsense here... I'm not the one insulting you...
Here is an example for you to chew on
http://www.nytimes.com/news/article/...example_link...
Differential tax treatment is nothing more than a hidden subsidy... and there's plenty more where that came from.
And just think back to why the Boston Tea Party happened in the first place.
An act was passed mandating which specific company's tea people had to buy.
Which means this pattern of behavior has a very long history...
These kinds of scenarios usually manifest within the supposed icons of the "free market."....
America is the ultimate representative of that particular style.
Once I have a bit more free time, I'll throw a few more examples your way....
Oh, so we know each other now? You're clearly well-versed in my life story, aren't you? How charming. But honestly, where either of us has worked is completely irrelevant to this debate, so please, let's not resort to trolling. And it's truly wonderful that you're getting your news from a site like BuzzFeed. It's such a high-quality journalistic outlet that one can actually trust what they read there.
Bottom line: this is just a mountain of overblown nonsense. There's zero evidence that massive corporations are built on subsidies, even if small businesses are.
placidrider48 said:We should probably just copy word for word and then actually put them into practice. These big banks are bleeding us dry, so I guess we need to hit them with something so heavy they might never recover from it.
And there you have it—that's the level we're dealing with. Viktor Orbán is speaking directly to those uninvited warriors who love to rail against big corporate conspiracies and Western elites just to stir up resentment among the common people.
I suspect Kojiro Izawa would be quite surprised to learn that pre-trial settlements actually do far more damage to a bank's bottom line than anything Viktor Orbán has ever attempted to do.
nimbleharbor10 said:Only some guy using Reagan as his avatar could possibly attempt to pass off the current state of affairs in America as anything resembling good.
I realize you might find North Korea to be an ideal alternative, but I don't have any charts to support that view.
But honestly, just admit you didn't quite grasp what the graph was showing; it's certainly not something you can just digest at a glance without some thought!
On a different note, regarding the shrinking middle class—why exactly would that be such a disaster if the remaining middle tier is actually becoming more affluent?
Take the US, for example.
It’s really just a mountain of unsubstantiated claims without a single shred of concrete data to back them up.
hollowhawk412 said:Which simply isn't the case... 🤷
How am I even supposed to address your claims when you haven't actually made any specific assertions
What kind of posts are these where nothing is ever actually stated
Honestly, the insults sting because they really speak volumes about your level of class...
It's all just fabricated bureaucracy, if you ask me, because nowadays there seems to be a new regulation for every single damn thing; take the energy certificate laws, for instance, which I am legally REQUIRED to obtain—as if I didn't have the free will to decide whether or not I wanted to take a risk for a lower price—and then I’m forced to maintain this facade, I have to carry specific insurance or face some massive fine from the government, and don't even get me started on how everyone needs all these various licenses, as if those ridiculous licenses actually mean anything...
Banks exist solely to feast on fees, and they hold all those licenses too, maintaining this massive concentration of power while only handing out loans if the federal government guarantees them
Which part of that is inaccurate?
You really just keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. You might as well just put it in your profile signature that everything ever created is solely the fault of the government; it would save us all the trouble of reading these repetitive posts.
First off, the idea that major corporations only exist because of government subsidies is total nonsense and a completely baseless generalization.
"Make-believe jobs"? That's a ridiculous category to even suggest. It’s clear you don't really grasp the subject matter at hand. You're just talking in circles...
Besides, if you took a moment to actually study the productivity growth data for most companies, I think you'd be quite surprised by what you find.
hollowhawk412 said:Man, this guy is just talking nonsense... they have a drastically smaller deficit than we do...
It is absolutely vital to stimulate small businesses, because let's face it, the big corporations only exist because of subsidies and government contracts, and then you have the banks and insurance companies which are essentially
jobs created by legislation; they effectively have a public foundation regardless of the fact that they are
private entities, so they actually ought to play a social role....
That would mean providing credit to smaller firms, supporting manufacturing, and all the other things they do back in their home countries...
What a complete pile of nonsense.
Grace Barrett said:Don't give me that—both our datasets cover the exact same timeframe. The only difference is mine reflects real values while yours is just nominal fluff.
Anyway, regardless of how you slice it, Canada looks better according to that link of yours too.
🤦
No, they are both real figures. Honestly, who am I even talking to here?
The only thing you're right about is that they are both estimates. However, mine is an estimate from April 2013, whereas yours is from April 2012—so, tell me, which one do you think is actually more accurate?
Richard Wilson4 said:Don't come at Ronald Reagan like that. We actually agree on stuff way more often than not, so if anything, this one's on you.😉
It's clearly coming from the wrong place. You're being quite petty here—getting caught up in slogans, grandstanding, and mere posturing... it's all emotion and zero logic. You might want to work on that!
Grace Barrett said:Stop trying to cook the books for the red party...😁
US real GDP growth
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
4.1% 4.4% 4.3% 4.9% 3.5% 4% 1% 0.9%
2009 2010 2011 2012*
-6.8% 1.3% 1.7% 0%
Read more: http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-countr...#ixzz2gOeNeAZj
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike
America:
Real GDP growth
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
3.8% 5.4% 5% 4.3% 4.2% 4.7% 5.5% 2.2%
2009 2010 2011 2012*
-6% -1.2% 0% -0.5%
Read more: http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-countr...#ixzz2gOf2qkOr
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Share Alike
It’s pretty obvious that the economy over there is heading up, while ours—under these chicken-brained leaders—is just tanking...
Look, I was actually using the most recent data straight from the IMF. It’s quite a different story than what your source is peddling, which seems to be relying on outdated IMF figures. If you had taken a closer look at what you just posted, you'd realize your source is still tossing around estimates from 2012—data that's ancient history by now. It's honestly exhausting trying to have a serious discussion when I'm up against such amateurs. 🤦
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/..._RPCH&grp=0&a=
Richard Wilson4 said:Viktor Orbán is one of those rare statesmen you see in Europe. Honestly, his whole way of running things would be a total game-changer for the US, both economically and politically 👍
🤣
When an expert of that caliber offers his endorsement, I think it's worth stepping back to consider what we might be doing wrong.
To be fair, there is one bright spot in Canada, which is their flexible exchange rate.
As for everything else that gets the socialists and the nationalist xenophobes all worked up—it’s just standard populist nonsense that hasn't actually achieved anything. People here seem to have this obsession with grandstanding and chest-thumping, acting like they're some kind of heroes, but honestly, it’s all for show. It doesn't change a thing.
US GDP growth over the last 5 years: 2.084 -6.947 -2.272 -0.047 -1.976
Canada, over the last 5 years: 0.743 -6.695 1.244 1.652 -1.659
If you’re actually using those numbers as a model for success, you might want to go see a doctor.
And those folks who love questioning whether someone’s wealth is justified when it’s a thousand times the national average could easily just look at how much more they have compared to some poor soul living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Curiously enough, whenever they do that, their own hands always seem perfectly clean.
To put it simply, it’s just pure envy. People try to rationalize their resentment by labeling the wealthy as thieves, though they almost never bring a shred of actual evidence to the table.
A few thoughts here:
+ In my view, the real priority should be building an informal anti-Marxist coalition that can dismantle leftist and anarchist ideas through solid argumentation, rather than just endlessly debating different flavors of capitalism. There will always be plenty of time for internal capitalist squabbles. At the end of the day, the left operates specifically by those principles; they don’t actually offer a viable alternative to capitalism. Instead, they cleverly dodge proposing their own hollow visions for how a system should function, choosing instead to master the role of the systemic critic—which is where they hold all the sway. Striking at the foundations of Marxism and its flimsy theses would be a massive win. This effort could bring together neo-classicals, Austrians, Keynesians, and even genuine social democrats—as long as they share that fundamental anti-Marxist core.
+ Working outside of party lines, engaging in reasoned debates, and educating the public will have a much deeper impact than simply trying to steer the policies of individual parties. A political party will pivot toward the voters if it's politically expedient, but if it doesn't, they'll just keep hitting a brick wall. If capitalist ideas gain traction among the general public, the parties will inevitably follow suit. It isn't that politicians can't influence public opinion, but the actual reach of non-charismatic individuals is quite limited.
+ In this propaganda war, PBS holds a pivotal position. Historically, various factions have fought for control there, but before the recent crises hit, the focus wasn't even really on capitalism; it was the usual battles between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, revolving around figures like Harmon, Marshall, or Pavelić. Today, we could argue that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly control PBS. Because of lingering ties to the old system—that sense of nostalgia for the old guard, the partisans, and the era of Harmon—the Republican Party finds them more distasteful than the Democrats. Yet, the news, culture, and lifestyle editors at PBS are actually quite neoliberal. Within the parliamentary landscape, the Labor Party is arguably the most popular on PBS, though many find them far too mild. I had hoped—and that hope is still flickering—that Radman might step in and clean house effectively. As a former Democratic talent, he would be the perfect candidate for this, especially since it’s unrealistic to expect the Republican Party to make a fuss about firing people like Kosanović or other journalists who are too deeply entrenched in ideology; after all, the Republicans have always had teeth against them and frequently challenge their very foundations. He wouldn't even need to fire them; simply freezing them out would suffice, though I'm not sure which media outlet would take them—they might only find work in marginal print circles like The New York Times. If a Republican-appointed director were to attempt a purge like that, you'd likely see the Democrats resisting.
+ Anyone could easily list the Marxist forces present in the American media; they are everywhere, lurking in the shadows. But who are the prominent media voices advocating for a different model—Šonjo, Polšek, and who else? I am talking about those who are genuinely, seriously active on these topics, not just mentioning them in passing, but treating them as their primary mission. Who serves as the alternative to the Horvats, Kapovićs, and Mršics of the world? There is a massive void there. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has its own agenda and interests, which often does more harm than good in these ideological clashes.
+ Someone finally needs to tackle the issue of privatization in America. I’ve written about this on the forum before. The myth surrounding privatization does immense damage to the pro-capitalist cause. Nowadays, everyone in the US "knows" about the predatory privatization era that brought nothing but misery to the people, leading them to look back nostalgically at the supposed security of the socialist days. We need to shatter that myth. We need to lay out a clear chronology: when did privatization actually begin, and when did the American economy start to crumble? Corruption is a side story; the main narrative is the collapse of a decaying socialist economy. There are specific academic works on this subject that need to be brought out of the shadows.
driftingcobra22 said:Well, in America, there isn't really an economic left or right distinction, because when things get serious about money, the leftists and those self-proclaimed American right-wingers end up blowing the same horn. Another big thing is that the radical left pays way more attention to economics than the right does, since it’s barely even on their radar... American right-wingers are mostly obsessed with nationhood, faith, the church, family, and constantly defending all that from some perceived threat... or whatever. They spend just as much time worrying about relations with Mexico, the status of Americans in Latin America, Muslims, the European Union, the American Civil War, World War II, and stuff like that. They only bring up the economy in passing, usually just to complain about the privatization of some failing state companies, selling large tracts of land to foreigners, or when they need to talk about how foreign products and TV shows are ruining the morals and behavior of the American people...
The moderate left also focuses way more on social issues, minority rights, LGBTQ+ rights, drug legalization, and so on, so in America, it's totally normal to see the heirs of old communist movements in the Democratic Party teaming up with the most capitalist-leaning wing of the Liberal Party...
In this kind of setup, the people paying the most attention to economics—and doing so from radical Marxist positions—are clowns like Horvat, Mate Kapović, and their crew, because their whole ideological foundation is that capitalism causes every single social problem, so it has to be destroyed and replaced by some new socialism... which makes capitalism their primary target. Then you have the libertarians, who are disorganized and completely marginal, mostly just talking about economics online on forums, blogs, and increasingly on various news sites...
Those clowns are everywhere. They stick together, constantly pulling each other up, having captured CNN, appearing across other major media outlets, and even founding their own media platforms and activist groups to push their agenda.
Their ideology might be hollow, but they are highly organized and well-connected—which is surprisingly successful for people who claim to be anti-materialist when it comes to generating revenue.
Personally, I find the Austrian School to be a bit too radical; when it comes to economic theory, I tend toward the American mainstream—somewhere between London and Chicago—though I certainly find the Austrian School much more palatable than any sort of Marxist nonsense. So, why aren't they making waves? Or more broadly, why isn't there a strong pro-capitalist movement? They should start something similar to H-alter, but from a right-wing perspective, or perhaps a publication backed by state grants, similar to how LMD, comma, and News outlets operate, and then really make an impact.
But the question remains: is there actually anyone with the talent to pull something like that off? The radical left tends to recruit heavily from Philosophy departments—majors like philosophy, sociology, comparative studies, and so on—as well as journalism programs at places like FPZ, specifically targeting students whom professors have indoctrinated with Naomi Klein and similar thinkers. Where could one find advocates for right-leaning ideas—essentially the antithesis of that Marxist-anarchist-anti-Western ideology? Perhaps a rare gem in a philosophy or sociology program would be worth their weight in gold, since they know those circles intimately, maybe someone out of FPZ. You would surely find more potential candidates within history, economics, or various engineering programs.
Amanda Allen4 said:The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.
There is definitely a financial incentive involved here, but I would argue there is an even deeper motivation at play. They aren't just looking for a paycheck; they are looking for their own place in the sun—better status, more influence, and real power.
It really comes down to a hunger for dominance. Every social group tends to view itself as marginalized to justify why they deserve more resources. These academic types and leftist cultural figures see the business sector as their primary rival, which is why they constantly lump politicians and CEOs together under the label of "the elite." Yet, strangely enough, they don't see themselves as part of that elite; instead, they claim to be "of the people," even though they often have absolutely nothing in common with everyday Americans. To them, the public is merely a tool used to fight for better positioning. They stir up resentment and indulge in indoctrination just to win their little power struggles. Class warfare isn't driven by those at the bottom; you won't find a janitor leading a revolution based purely on ideology. A janitor only rebels when they are truly hungry. No, these movements are orchestrated by academic elites who ride waves of discontent to seize political control or secure a dominant social standing.