The Political Compass Test

Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion. It's a bit like saying "I'm wealthy, therefore I'm a good Christian".

gleam wrote: Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion.

Whatever happened to the camel and the needle...

nacho wrote: gleam wrote: Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion. Whatever happened to the camel and the needle...

I'm not clear over your analogy, however I am clear about who foot the bills. It's noble to want to help the less fortunate, that's why we have FICA in the U.S.

England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work. The population is taxed to death with no relief in sight. How much of that tax goes to welfare? Has it resolved anything? No on the contrary, it's only engendered one generation after another living on the dole.

gleam wrote: nacho wrote: gleam wrote: Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion. Whatever happened to the camel and the needle...   I'm not clear over your analogy, however I am clear about who foot the bills. It's noble to want to help the less fortunate, that's why we have FICA in the U.S. England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work. The population is taxed to death with no relief in sight. How much of that tax goes to welfare? Has it resolved anything? No on the contrary, it's only engendered one generation after another living on the dole.

Utter rubbish! Are you trying to say that Britain has had 50 years of Socialist Government?
It was the ultra right-wing PM Margeret Thatcher who forced an unemployment rise to 5 million. Nineteen years of Tory rule saw this country dying ond on its knees.Years and years of zero investment by big business saw our industrial heartland devastated.Heartless profiteering and a "f**k you" attitude.

Gleam-tell me how Capitalism is working for the most vulnerable in today's society.Tell me how it provides for the needy globally.
The Conservative/Republican parties of the UK and USA are there to serve the very,very rich.The trick is to get mugs like you to keep sl*gging off socialism as if socialism is the devil.
I hear Ivan talking about "socialists" but his "socialists" sound like Communists to me.I here you talk about "socialist" policies almost with a hint of distaste.Socialism in the modern world as demonstrated by The Labour Party in the UK has a many faults-however it still tries to follow the basic principle of a fairer deal for the most vunerable in society and is a million miles (only some would say unfortunately) from Communism.Do not confuse the two.And do not make the mistake of thinking this country has not done well under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown-au contraire.
A better deal for all or a better deal for the most well off.No contest mate!

The very rich had have it their own way for,well thousands of years.The rich had everything,everyone else were slaves.Feudalism,serfdom,slavery this is what happens when the rich go unchecked and unhindered.The Labour Party only came into power over the last 80 years or so in the UK and that is not long for a political system trying to dismantle a tradition of greed.

Gleam your statement "England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work." and here I choose my words carefully, DISGUSTS ME!

Even if you believe that Socialism cant work its principles are at least moral when compared with Capitalism.Dont you see Capitalism "works" because it is forced upon us as the system of choice of the most privileged-ie the people with the real power.These people will make damned sure socialism cant work.You shouldnt have to legislate "compassion" and "duty",they should be normal human desires.

James Lee wrote: ^ are you implying that capitalism (by comparison) is working?

Absolutely,

1) The U.S. GDP for 2003 (I don't have 2004 numbers) was $10,881,610,000,000 which is two and a half times greater than it's closest competitor Japan. You have to take into the account the huge advantage Japanese industry has because of their goverments subsidies, in addition to protectionist trade tariffs.

2) Nine out of the top ten brands in the world are American. As follows:

First: Coca Cola

Second: Microsoft

Third: IBM

Fourth: GE

Fifth: Intel

Sixth: Nokia

Seventh: Disney

Eigth: McDonalds

Ninth: Marlboro

Tenth: Mercedes

3) If you were to compare corporations along the same lines as countries (GDP), GM would rank 23, Walmart 25 (right behind Denmark), Exxon 26, Ford 27 and Chrysler would be number 28.

I would say that capitalism is doing very well.

This BTW while suffering through a recession, 9/11, the war in Afghanistan/Iraq and contributing to the Tsunami relief to the tune of $1 Billion dollars. Where do we find the time.

nacho wrote: Sure capitalism is doing pretty well. I'm only worried about how well are doing people living in capitalist countries...

Yep, exactly my point. Have you ever seen the poor in some of the more capitalistic Asian countries. Just terrible. The point for making a blended economic system is to ensure not many people will living in poverty.

gleam wrote: James Lee wrote: ^ are you implying that capitalism (by comparison) is working? Absolutely, 1) The U.S. GDP for 2003 (I don't have 2004 numbers) was $10,881,610,000,000 which is two and a half times greater than it's closest competitor Japan. You have to take into the account the huge advantage Japanese industry has because of their goverments subsidies, in addition to protectionist trade tariffs. 2) Nine out of the top ten brands in the world are American. As follows: First: Coca Cola Second: Microsoft Third: IBM Fourth: GE Fifth: Intel Sixth: Nokia Seventh: Disney Eigth: McDonalds Ninth: Marlboro Tenth: Mercedes 3) If you were to compare corporations along the same lines as countries (GDP), GM would rank 23, Walmart 25 (right behind Denmark), Exxon 26, Ford 27 and Chrysler would be number 28. I would say that capitalism is doing very well. This BTW while suffering through a recession, 9/11, the war in Afghanistan/Iraq and contributing to the Tsunami relief to the tune of $1 Billion dollars. Where do we find the time.

Yes,but Gleam-who is it working for? How much of that tremendous profit is coming your way?Why are there people still living on the streets?
Open your eyes and heart-not your wallet.

Tony R wrote: gleam wrote: nacho wrote: gleam wrote: Actually poverty is a social issue, not a moral one. Whether one is rich or poor has nothing to do with their religion. Whatever happened to the camel and the needle...   I'm not clear over your analogy, however I am clear about who foot the bills. It's noble to want to help the less fortunate, that's why we have FICA in the U.S. England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work. The population is taxed to death with no relief in sight. How much of that tax goes to welfare? Has it resolved anything? No on the contrary, it's only engendered one generation after another living on the dole. Utter rubbish! Are you trying to say that Britain has had 50 years of Socialist Government? It was the ultra right-wing PM Margeret Thatcher who forced an unemployment rise to 5 million. Nineteen years of Tory rule saw this country dying ond on its knees.Years and years of zero investment by big business saw our industrial heartland devastated.Heartless profiteering and a "f**k you" attitude. Gleam-tell me how Capitalism is working for the most vulnerable in today's society.Tell me how it provides for the needy globally. The Conservative/Republican parties of the UK and USA are there to serve the very,very rich.The trick is to get mugs like you to keep sl*gging off socialism as if socialism is the devil. I hear Ivan talking about "socialists" but his "socialists" sound like Communists to me.I here you talk about "socialist" policies almost with a hint of distaste.Socialism in the modern world as demonstrated by The Labour Party in the UK has a many faults-however it still tries to follow the basic principle of a fairer deal for the most vunerable in society and is a million miles (only some would say unfortunately) from Communism.Do not confuse the two.And do not make the mistake of thinking this country has not done well under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown-au contraire. A better deal for all or a better deal for the most well off.No contest mate! The very rich had have it their own way for,well thousands of years.The rich had everything,everyone else were slaves.Feudalism,serfdom,slavery this is what happens when the rich go unchecked and unhindered.The Labour Party only came into power over the last 80 years or so in the UK and that is not long for a political system trying to dismantle a tradition of greed. Gleam your statement "England is a classic example of fifty years of Socialism, it doesn't work." and here I choose my words carefully, DISGUSTS ME! Even if you believe that Socialism cant work its principles are at least moral when compared with Capitalism.Dont you see Capitalism "works" because it is forced upon us as the system of choice of the most privileged-ie the people with the real power.These people will make damned sure socialism cant work.You shouldnt have to legislate "compassion" and "duty",they should be normal human desires.

Tony R,

I stand by what I said, England has been in an economic tailspin long before the Tories under Thatcher came to power. No one wants to invest in the country because it doesn't make economic sense. Companies invest in countries with the purpose of earning a profit, that is what the stockholders expect. Let's be realistic, why do so many of your rock royalty become tax exiles? 

Concerning Socialism, I think it's a form of goverment which has yet to work, ergo my previous comments concerning Britain's economic plight. 

In reference to your last paragraph, Socialism works as long as some one else is footing the bill. Cool when your on the receiving end, not so cool if your paying the tax bill. The moral thing to do is for every individual to compete. The purpose of capitalism is wealth creation, this is achieved by creating jobs so that people can purchase goods and services. You find something morally wrong with that? 

maani wrote: Tony: Yet another sincere "Bravo!" to you.  Amazing how much we actually agree upon, given our often radically 180 degree beliefs. Gleam: You can't be serious (and I'm guessing you're not...).  You are simply proving Tony's point: that capitalism "works" only for the very rich.  Tell me, how does that fact that our GDP is $10 trillion, that nine out of the top ten brands in the world are American, or that if certain companies were listed as "countries" their GDPs would outrank certain countries - how does all that help the average American?  Does it help pay their rent?  Put food on their table or clothing on their backs?  Does it provide them adequate, affordable health care?  These questions are rhetorical. Capitalism is "successful" for the few, but it is the single most "failed" economic system for the many. Peace.

Manni,

I'm very serious, I was asked if capitalism worked and I think the points I presented are self explanatory. We live in the wealthiest country in the world, enjoy the best standard of living (what other country could come up with something as self-indulgent as bulimia).

The average American has the highest per capita income in the world. We buy so much crap that we have to rent storage place to stash the overflow from our garages (there's an industry that's exploded in the past ten years). 

One last point, if Americans are living a hand to mouth existence, then how is it that the companies I mention are doing so well. Someone must be doing the purchasing?

Tony R wrote: Apparently you are the only one in the Universe who doesnt accept that Britain has one of the strongest,if not the strongest,economies in the world right now. As for "Socialism works if someone else is footing the bill"-who is this "someone else"?What is being paid for that you disagree with? Most of "my" rock "royalty" become tax exiles because they are selfish,ignorant,ungrateful,greedy bastards. Do not make the mistake of suggesting that I would do the same in their shoes.......

I never contended that England wasn't an economic power, btw it's in contention with France for fourth place.

In reference to my socialism comment, please tell me the effective tax rate for the average English worker. Let's break it down by distribution and you will see just how much goes to paying "the dole".

Finally, I would never make the suggestion that you would act the same as "your rock royalty". However I would venture to say that once you have worked hard to earn something you become what us Republicans call "a conservative".