Political Compass

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:00 am

thefool wrote:
pdwyer wrote:Agree, Some of these questions go nowhere and are ambiguous. These:
- military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
- protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade

Sometimes? well, I guess whether you agree or disagree in general there's probably some sitation where these are justified :roll:

And this!!!!
- a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Are they asking if I agree with having restrictions on monopolies or are they checking if I understand the definition of a genuine free market? Or are they asking if I think free markets are bad because of this??

People will answer differently not because of their left/right bent but because of the interpretation of the question (trying to guess where the author is going to score it)
The first: yes of course. there is nothing weird about that. Disagree means "sometimes agree", agree means "sometimes disagree", but mostly the thing you chose.

Are they asking if I agree with having restrictions on monopolies or are they checking if I understand the definition of a genuine free market? Or are they asking if I think free markets are bad because of this??
I don't see what there is to misunderstand.

Well, in my own case. I think that genuine free markets don't have restrictions on monopolies by definition, but I don't think that's a good thing, I think there should be some restrictions in the market of the economy where I want to live - ie, I don't want to live in a completely free market economy partly for this reason.

SO:

"a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies"

I AGREE that "a market" should have these restrictions
I DISAGREE that a "Genuine free market" requires them because then it's not a genuine free market anymore.

Perhaps what they should ask is "Do you think a genuine free market is good for society"

When people start using words that have a good conotation "free" "flexible" "dynamic" "pro active" "Genuine" others think that this is way things should be in a perfect world and lean in that direction but it's not the case. In this question they seem to be saying

"Genuine free markets are good, don't you think they would be better if they had no monopolies?" :roll:

Which is a load of shit as if they had no monopolies they wouldn't be genuinely free, someone should beat them over the head with an economics text book and yell "Get it right!"

Post by **Rings** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:32 am

my pint of view:

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:41 am

pdwyer wrote:
thefool wrote:
pdwyer wrote:Agree, Some of these questions go nowhere and are ambiguous. These:
- military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
- protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade

Sometimes? well, I guess whether you agree or disagree in general there's probably some sitation where these are justified :roll:

And this!!!!
- a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Are they asking if I agree with having restrictions on monopolies or are they checking if I understand the definition of a genuine free market? Or are they asking if I think free markets are bad because of this??

People will answer differently not because of their left/right bent but because of the interpretation of the question (trying to guess where the author is going to score it)
The first: yes of course. there is nothing weird about that. Disagree means "sometimes agree", agree means "sometimes disagree", but mostly the thing you chose.

Are they asking if I agree with having restrictions on monopolies or are they checking if I understand the definition of a genuine free market? Or are they asking if I think free markets are bad because of this??
I don't see what there is to misunderstand.
Well, in my own case. I think that genuine free markets don't have restrictions on monopolies by definition, but I don't think that's a good thing, I think there should be some restrictions in the market of the economy where I want to live - ie, I don't want to live in a completely free market economy partly for this reason.

SO:

"a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies"

I AGREE that "a market" should have these restrictions
I DISAGREE that a "Genuine free market" requires them because then it's not a genuine free market anymore.

Perhaps what they should ask is "Do you think a genuine free market is good for society"

When people start using words that have a good conotation "free" "flexible" "dynamic" "pro active" "Genuine" others think that this is way things should be in a perfect world and lean in that direction but it's not the case. In this question they seem to be saying

"Genuine free markets are good, don't you think they would be better if they had no monopolies?" :roll:

Which is a load of shit as if they had no monopolies they wouldn't be genuinely free, someone should beat them over the head with an economics text book and yell "Get it right!"

No you have to think in another way. If suddenly 2 companies sit on the whole food industry, and they press out all small companies that starts up, is it free anymore? I know the word genuine might be wrong but afterall, if the man on the floor can't start his way up then its just not free anymore.

I know its a bit wrongly phased the question, but i agreed to that a free market require regulation to KEEP IT free.

Rings: i thought lesbians WERE gay, so you are homosexual?

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:37 am

If suddenly 2 companies sit on the whole food industry, and they press out all small companies that starts up, is it free anymore?

Yes, that's a free marked.

Of course, we don't want it like that. So stop voting for the people who wants this!

Another faulty question:

the businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

What the hell do you answer if you think the manufacturer is the most important, then the writer and the artist, and the businessman least important?

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:40 am

Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:41 am

No you have to think in another way. If suddenly 2 companies sit on the whole food industry, and they press out all small companies that starts up, is it free anymore? I know the word genuine might be wrong but afterall, if the man on the floor can't start his way up then its just not free anymore.

I know its a bit wrongly phased the question, but i agreed to that a free market require regulation to KEEP IT free.

You prove my point

The questions are ambiguous because many people don't know what a free market really means in an economics sense, which given the wording of the question is intended to be talking about economics. I guess that's why others said this had a leftist slant. Generally I agree with your political point of view but "Free" in this sense means free of interference from third parites, meaning outside the market... meaning govenments. Free markets are anti-regulation. Its not about good or bad or free to trade in a happy loving envirnoment

, it's about the meaning of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party.[1] In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions en masse is described by the natural law of supply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals.[2] In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps to quantify its value to consumers and thus balance it against other goods and services. In a free market, this relationship between price and value is more clear than in a controlled market. Through competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:00 pm

Trond wrote:
If suddenly 2 companies sit on the whole food industry, and they press out all small companies that starts up, is it free anymore?
Yes, that's a free marked.

Of course, we don't want it like that. So stop voting for the people who wants this!

I wouldn't vote for such people but i see i got my definition corrected. I hope you understood my viewpoint though, that stand the same.

What the hell do you answer if you think the manufacturer is the most important, then the writer and the artist, and the businessman least important?

That one was a bit tricky. I think neither can exist without the other. Even hardcore business people needs music to live

SADLY the music industry has been a business for a long time but thats changing as we speak..

You prove my point

yes i stand corrected on my definition
Well i think i knew what you meant from the start but oh well i just defined a moderately regulated market as the free one

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Trond wrote:
Another faulty question:
the businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
What the hell do you answer if you think the manufacturer is the most important, then the writer and the artist, and the businessman least important?

hahaha

It's like the author had his

face on saying "I dare you to put the artist down you fascist!"

"Me and my chardonay socialist uni buddies are gonna come round and break your legs!"

I put "Agree" for that one

I don't think society should put more resources into art and literature over feeding itself just yet, we have enough poverty. Perhaps we'll get there one day though.

Been a fun topic this though

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:21 pm

Yah well i agree, some of the questions could have used a "neither agree or disagree"

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:24 pm

Yeah, on one of them I remember thinking "Don't know, don't care!"

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:29 pm

yeah exactly.

"You cannot have a moral without being religious"
I would have enjoyed a "WTF?" option

Dare · Post by **Dare** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:34 pm

thefool wrote:"You cannot have a moral without being religious"
I would have enjoyed a "WTF?" option

Agreed!

the.weavster · Post by **the.weavster** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:23 pm

Trond wrote:
If suddenly 2 companies sit on the whole food industry, and they press out all small companies that starts up, is it free anymore?
Yes, that's a free marked.

Of course, we don't want it like that. So stop voting for the people who wants this!

Compete or die. I want to live in a free market economy.

Big companies don't get big by accident, they get big because they're good at what they do.

The more politicians interfere the more f****d up everything gets.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:36 pm

they don't always get big because they're good at what they do, they get big because they are mercyless and rude and use dirty tricks too you know.

There has to be SOME regulations, or it won't go.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:50 pm

Rings wrote:my pint of view:

yeah, thats kewl... *orders two more pints*