Jump to content

Political Compass Test


Recommended Posts


(Not letting me post the image. It was 5 to the left, three towards libertarian)

 

Makes sense, as I was divided on a lot of issues. And even contradictory on some similar issues. (For example, when they asked if punishment was more important than rehabilitation, I disagreed. Then they asked if some prisoners were a waste of time to be rehabilitated, and I agreed). A lot of the questions were very general. But I've always considered myself a little to the left but not opposed to some ideas from the right, so this makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone who might be interested in reading one account of how "authoritarianism" and "libertarianism" function in a society, I highly recommend Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In my opinion it is one of the most important works of political philosophy of the 20th century, but it is certainly not an easy read.

 

 

Read it. Very interesting indeed. Also not easy to get through unless you have time. Ironically, you can take many of his arguments and use them to support government involvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is.

 

 

How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian?

 

I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was smack in the middle, and -5.69 toward libertarian (about 2/3 of the way). Sorry, I lost the image.

 

A lot of the questions drove me bonkers. I couldn't tell what they really wanted to gauge a lot of the time. For example:

 

"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."

 

Sure, I wish that many of the great minds who go into finance instead went into the sciences, and maybe even the arts. On the other hand, I think that an advanced financial system like we have is vital to the growth and well-being of an economy, so I am happy that we have such a system and therefore that there is a lot of money to be made by the people doing what the question prescribes.

 

Further, there is value - or, at least, it's debatable - in some of the finance-related activities commonly thought of as useless money-pushing.

 

My time in law school has colored some of my analysis here, too. Not what I feel, necessarily, but just a shift in what I perceive to be realities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is.

 

 

How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian?

 

I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media.

I didn't read the article, but I've heard those talking points thrown around and don't find them very convincing. They hinge mostly upon the number of regulations, which is rather immaterial. What really matters is the costs of the regulations be they compliance costs or lost productivity on the economy. In other words, the nature of the regulations and the severity of their consequences is what's most important. Obama has a poor track record in that regard.

 

It also goes without saying that George W. Bush's own neglect of free-market policies does not excuse Obama from being a "authoritarian" president with regard to the economy.

 

Pretty much what I was going to say on the last part. Comparison means nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is.

 

 

How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian?

 

I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media.

I didn't read the article, but I've heard those talking points thrown around and don't find them very convincing. They hinge mostly upon the number of regulations, which is rather immaterial. What really matters is the costs of the regulations be they compliance costs or lost productivity on the economy. In other words, the nature of the regulations and the severity of their consequences is what's most important. Obama has a poor track record in that regard.

 

It also goes without saying that George W. Bush's own neglect of free-market policies does not excuse Obama from being a "authoritarian" president with regard to the economy.

 

The article also takes costs into account. It's been lower under Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is very authoritarian. When it comes to Economics, that is.

 

 

How so? And by what scale you mean authoritarian?

 

I don't think he is. In fact, read a Bloomberg article last week that showed that at this point in his presidency he's instituted LESS regulations than Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. And it was SIGNIFICANTLY less. I think sometimes people are fooled by narratives in the media.

I didn't read the article, but I've heard those talking points thrown around and don't find them very convincing. They hinge mostly upon the number of regulations, which is rather immaterial. What really matters is the costs of the regulations be they compliance costs or lost productivity on the economy. In other words, the nature of the regulations and the severity of their consequences is what's most important. Obama has a poor track record in that regard.

 

It also goes without saying that George W. Bush's own neglect of free-market policies does not excuse Obama from being a "authoritarian" president with regard to the economy.

 

The article also takes costs into account. It's been lower under Obama.

Could you post it?

 

I find it hard to swallow that the man who signed Obamacare and Dodd-Frank into law would not be presiding over one of the most massive increases in regulatory costs on businesses.

 

Furthermore, not every study measures regulatory costs in the same manner or accounts for them objectively.

 

I was wrong. Costs have gone up, but only by a small percentage (hundredths of a percent) of GDP. http://www.bloomberg...-business.html#

 

Regardless, people assume the cost of regulations under Obama have doubled or tripled.

 

I am in financial services. Some parts of Dodd Frank are very needed to curb excessive risk taking (read: taking risks so large that you need a bailout). Some parts of Dodd Frank are absolute garbage. I think the good parts outweigh the bad, and over the longer term we will end up scrapping the bad rules. This was just necessary given what happened leading up to the financial crisis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That link does not provide very much information as far as what's being taken into consideration. I would like to see their estimated costs for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank before I give it any validity. It is difficult to quantify the fiscal damage that those two bills will introduce as they unfold over time. It sounds like to me that they are just tabulating OMB measurements.

 

Nevertheless, Obama and George W. Bush have been more or less similar presidents in terms of their fiscal policy. Obama is receiving more heat about the regulatory burden in the country because the current economic climate is radically different from what Bush was facing during most of his presidency. The present circumstances demand that we start repealing regulations rather than creating new ones.

 

Repealing Dodd-Frank in its entirety would be a great place to start. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about it. It completely ignores the root cause for the excessive risk taking on Wall Street, which was the "too low for too long" monetary policy. The bill more or less reinforces or even exacerbates the same problems that caused the crisis in the first place. Most notably, it essentially maintains the "too big too fail" doctrine.

 

 

Even if you're not happy with the results of the test as an individual, could you at least agree that where you chart is relative to other users?

 

That's what I like most about it, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That link does not provide very much information as far as what's being taken into consideration. I would like to see their estimated costs for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank before I give it any validity. It is difficult to quantify the fiscal damage that those two bills will introduce as they unfold over time. It sounds like to me that they are just tabulating OMB measurements.

 

Nevertheless, Obama and George W. Bush have been more or less similar presidents in terms of their fiscal policy. Obama is receiving more heat about the regulatory burden in the country because the current economic climate is radically different from what Bush was facing during most of his presidency. The present circumstances demand that we start repealing regulations rather than creating new ones.

 

Repealing Dodd-Frank in its entirety would be a great place to start. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about it. It completely ignores the root cause for the excessive risk taking on Wall Street, which was the "too low for too long" monetary policy. The bill more or less reinforces or even exacerbates the same problems that caused the crisis in the first place. Most notably, it essentially maintains the "too big too fail" doctrine.

 

 

Does the article only consider regulation in the sense of Federal government regulations (the CFRs) that have already been codified?

 

In that case, certain things like Obamacare would not be included as it doesn't really go into effect and start consuming funds until (was it 2014?).

Link to post
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.



×
×
  • Create New...