Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Lol, I've got another picture. I don't really know how you can get away from this one.

Check it out (pg 7).

I can "get away from this one" very easily, because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.) You've pulled up graphs that mark the level of state-ownership that is present in an economy, not graphs that represent political ideology or anything beyond that. For example, where would Keynes be placed upon such a graph? He wasn't a free marketer, but didn't propose nationalisation. What about Corporatism? Where does that fit on your little graph? In fact, your two latest graphs offer no information about liberalism at all, they just use umbrella economic definitions and simplyify things.

The Political Compass has a nice explaination of where US politics lie and can give you an idea of how far away US liberalism is from socialism.

At 4/22/08 11:48 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 4/22/08 11:41 PM, n64kid wrote: so I'll try to text this out as best as I can...

Yeah, spacings didn't really hold.

That actually makes a lot of sense for such a simple graph. It would also require a bit of stuff in between for a "mixed economy" (like Britain had 1945-1980s) but generally good. If you then overlaid the US political spectrum (where the economic views of liberals would be represented between the two upper tiers of the graph) it would actually do a good job in clearing up what people misunderstand.

At 4/23/08 06:34 AM, Slizor wrote:

Lol, I've got another picture. I don't really know how you can get away from this one.

Check it out (pg 7).

I can "get away from this one" very easily

Nay.

because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.)

It's not a "Nike report", it's a textbook. The reason the Nike "swoosh" is on it is because the book uses Nike as an example for some specific business models and business practices. However, beginning of the book, including the page I linked to, is about macroeconomics and has nothing to do with Nike. That is the source of the graph I provided. You're not doing a good job at trying to discount it as a source.

You've pulled up graphs that mark the level of state-ownership that is present in an economy, not graphs that represent political ideology or anything beyond that.

LOL, so policies concerning how the economy is run isn't a political ideology? So you're saying the difference countries have in how much power their government has over allocation and distribution of wealth compared to private citizens/organizations isn't a political ideology?

"Liberal", by modern definition, is more inclined towards socialism than "conservatives". In the US especially, since you bring it up, the more "left" or "liberal" the politician, the more they are in support of socialist policies like state control of healthcare and other services.

Socialist economies today tends to be mixed economies, having both private ownership and state ownership of certain economic assets. There is a large margin between the fringes of communism on the left, and the fringes of capitalism on the right for socialism to fit into, so there are varying degrees. But it's a simple fact that you're apparently unprepared to accept. Socialism is liberal, not classically liberal, but liberal in the modern nomenclature.

because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.)

It's not a "Nike report", it's a textbook. The reason the Nike "swoosh" is on it is because the book uses Nike as an example for some specific business models and business practices. However, beginning of the book, including the page I linked to, is about macroeconomics and has nothing to do with Nike. That is the source of the graph I provided. You're not doing a good job at trying to discount it as a source.

You pulled up a macroeconomics book to prove me wrong on political theory? You looked at an economist's definition, rather than a political theorist's? Why would you do that, other than because political theorists don't agree with you. Really, you don't need to bother to read them just look at how the chapters are split. I mean, you can read them if you want to, but it'll just refute you in more detail.

You've pulled up graphs that mark the level of state-ownership that is present in an economy, not graphs that represent political ideology or anything beyond that.

LOL, so policies concerning how the economy is run isn't a political ideology?

No, it's a political position, not an ideology in and of itself. The third book actually dedicates quite a bit explaining what an ideology is.

So you're saying the difference countries have in how much power their government has over allocation and distribution of wealth compared to private citizens/organizations isn't a political ideology?

Again, no. These things are shaped by and molded around (particularly in the US) a political ideology, but do not constitute ideologies in themselves.

"Liberal", by modern definition, is more inclined towards socialism than "conservatives".

In the US especially, since you bring it up, the more "left" or "liberal" the politician, the more they are in support of socialist policies like state control of healthcare and other services.

What you misunderstand (have a good look at the second book (I think) for this) is that Liberalism underwent a revolution following J.S. Mill. It was not stolen by socialists (as people such as Friedman and Hayek would claim) but made the natural progression to considering other obstacles to liberty and thus became Modern Liberalism.

There is a large margin between the fringes of communism on the left, and the fringes of capitalism on the right for socialism to fit into, so there are varying degrees.

Good argument there. You'll define both communism and capitalism at the extremes and then label eveything in between socialism - way to see in black and white. In this solely economic terminology that you are using, where is corporatism?

But it's a simple fact that you're apparently unprepared to accept. Socialism is liberal, not classically liberal, but liberal in the modern nomenclature.

No, Liberalism is liberal. Socialism is socialist. As soon as you start conflating the two terms you end up being unable to m ake distinctions between two very different positions that, while they may meet at points, approach politics in very different ways.

Liberals oppose science and logic? Conservatives don't like art? LOL.

I think a better test would have to take into account a few other things.

What does conservative actually mean? Its usually someone who resists change or longs for a return to old policies. Small government, tradition, and societal/moral laws will come first in this person's mind. A conservative will only want intervention if they can see some sort of moral improvement or some sort of "logical" improvement where they perceive a threat to their life style.

Liberals on the other hand long for change. They are ultimately upset with something and want to fix a problem. They see large government as a tool to fix their problems, believe societal laws and moral laws should change in some instances. Liberals usually care about the lives of others and focus on the larger world picture than the individual, be it the actual individual, their state, or their country. Against the conservative side, a moral choice will often be left to the individual.

Vouchers: Help the individual. 1 for conservatives. Don't help the collective necessarily.

Taxes: Help the individual by lowering them: Conservative. Help the collective by using them for the collective: Liberal.

Abortion: Morally questionable, a perceived threat to religious values. 2 outweighs individual freedom: Conservatives against. Belief person should have choice on moral matters: liberal.

Military: The military is there to protect your way of life. Conservatives clearly believe that their way of life should be protected and is THE right way of life. Liberals, more open to other cultures are more likely to be willing to communicate first. Liberals usually support the military in some fashion, but not to the extent that conservatives do, where it borders on committing with out bounds.

Drug Laws: Personal moral question, perceived threat to society: Conservative for laws/Liberals for more choices.

Gay rights: see drug laws.

Anyway, since people use their label to justify the way they already feel there will not be one test to divide them, just some guiding principles.

I tend not to like the liberal/conservative label as it's meaning as of late has become very perjorative. How many times have you heard someone say either of those without adding some kind of very negative adjective to it? and every time they do, the term itself loses a bit more credibility.

At 4/24/08 06:53 AM, Slizor wrote:

because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.)

It's not a "Nike report", it's a textbook. The reason the Nike "swoosh" is on it is because the book uses Nike as an example for some specific business models and business practices. However, beginning of the book, including the page I linked to, is about macroeconomics and has nothing to do with Nike. That is the source of the graph I provided. You're not doing a good job at trying to discount it as a source.

You pulled up a macroeconomics book to prove me wrong on political theory?

I showed you the spectrum of ideologies concerning political theories as they pertain to the economy. Yeah.

You looked at an economist's definition, rather than a political theorist's? Why would you do that, other than because political theorists don't agree with you. Really, you don't need to bother to read them just look at how the chapters are split. I mean, you can read them if you want to, but it'll just refute you in more detail.

Wow you're a coward.

You want to actually cite the specific pages and what they say to back up what you say? Or should I just link to the first page of an entire book and pretend like somewhere in that book it disproves what you said, making you do all the work.

Nice try though.

You pulled up a macroeconomics book to prove me wrong on political theory?

I showed you the spectrum of ideologies concerning political theories as they pertain to the economy. Yeah.

No, you showed me an economist's view of the spectrum of government control over the economy and what they would label each approach. You didn't show me shit about liberalism or about socialism.

You looked at an economist's definition, rather than a political theorist's? Why would you do that, other than because political theorists don't agree with you. Really, you don't need to bother to read them just look at how the chapters are split. I mean, you can read them if you want to, but it'll just refute you in more detail.

Wow you're a coward.

Says the serial deleter. Found out where you would put corporatism?

You want to actually cite the specific pages and what they say to back up what you say? Or should I just link to the first page of an entire book and pretend like somewhere in that book it disproves what you said, making you do all the work.

As I said, just look at the chapter titles. I'm not citing anything at you because I don't need to do research for these points, I've read it over and over and over again. I'm pointing you in the right direction for political theory, instead of relying on macroeconomics books.