Your Political Views - a test

[edhead2000]

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting wording


Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62

Right near Nelson Mendela

Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread. This test indicates that you are rather liberal. Why the discrepancy?

Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?

 

[michaeledward]

Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread. This test indicates that you are rather liberal. Why the discrepancy?

Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?

Looking at the responses, I am a bit curious. UpnorthKyosa and I are both pretty left on the political spectrum, but I am thinking we are out there in 'Wellstone Land'. This survey is placing many people on the left/liberitarian. I think that some of these people should be in the 'mushy-middle'.

Also, I think those who made comments about the biased nature of the survey, might be the ones who would balance out the other side of the bell curve.

I will keep watching the responses. - Mike

 

[Tgace]

I think its because the test has a liberal slant in its make-up. I believe theres a goal here to make people believe they are more liberal than they thought. I took it....when I answered the questions with a "well I dont believe this in every case" attitude I came out more liberal. When I took a "this is a liberal trick question" approach I came out conservative.

 

[michaeledward]

I think its because the test has a liberal slant in its make-up. I believe theres a goal here to make people believe they are more liberal than they thought. I took it....when I answered the questions with a "well I dont believe this in every case" attitude I came out more liberal. When I took a "this is a liberal trick question" approach I came out conservative.

Perhaps .... but what exactly is a 'Liberal Trick Question'?

 

[Ender]

the test is bogus. just look at the first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

who says it has to be either one of these??..it's as another poster said...the question is a basic "have you stopped beating your wife" type.

Products and services that reach consumers at efficient prices (not leading to waste or harm) would serve BOTH humanity and corporations.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, you claimed to vote republican rather frequently in another thread. This test indicates that you are rather liberal. Why the discrepancy?

Did anyone esle notice a discrepancy?

Hmmm The discrepency? There is none in my book. Why you might ask?

I vote per person and per what I want to make a point on. Many times I cannot find the perfect candidate and Compromise.

My Views. I support the U.S. Constitution. I also support Research and Design into technology, as this is how our overall standard of living is raised. Just look at all of the technology that is either directly or first generation indirectly from the space programs. All modern form of Coummincations, the PC and computer ships were designed for space and calculations for the ships and research. Only Microwave Ovens is not directly from the space research, as this was from WWII and beyond and a direct result of Military research.

Yet, when the Republicans that are now making all the issues around God, and their Religious value or morals. I find it hard to support them. To me this is not the issue, and is not the way to support the U.S. Constitution, in my humble opinion.

Now, when asked about individuals, or the environment, I also support these types of control. I voted for social security versus charity. Why? Charity would not help people and would miss people. I also voted for regulations to control environmental controls of large companies? Why? Because without it they would only go for profit, and not care about people or environment.

So, in my support if research, now most people aho make less than $25,000 a year have a cell phone and also cable and VCR or DVD and ..., and the list goes on. Their standard of living has improved versus, their parents or previous generations. Yet, has this resolved the issue of saving money? No they still spend it all on credit and bankruptcy. What about the increased life expentency due to technology? What do we about retirement?

With the increased regulations and increased write of credit, the companies increase the price of their products to pay their employees and also to make money for the Stock owners. This causes inflation, and is the down side to this. Yet if controlled, the economy grows with trade and the standard of living increases, and people prosper. I find this way easier to fund then to create programs that require funding without long term funding gaurenteed. If it locked in or cannot change then I approve. Once again my opinion.

Yet, in the end, one could point to this and say see the survey is flawed as it did not reflect how I have voted or might vote

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

Ender just gave an example of what I would call a "liberal trick question".

 

[michaeledward]

the test is bogus. just look at the first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

who says it has to be either one of these??..it's as another poster said...the question is a basic "have you stopped beating your wife" type.

Products and services that reach consumers at efficient prices (not leading to waste or harm) would serve BOTH humanity and corporations.

I see your point, but let me ask you, why is it in the interest of a 'trans-national corporation' to serve humanity?

Now, for the sake of discussion, I am not saying that corporations can not be (and/or are not) good citizens, no doubt some of them are. But according to the capitalist model, the purpose of any corporation is to generate value for its shareholders. It is not in the interest of the corporation to diminsh the shareholder value by properly disposing of PCB's for instance (see General Electric - Hudson River - 1960's). If the company is truly 'Trans-National', wouldn't it be easier just to transport these dangerous by-products of their economic engine to another country, which has less stringent regulations (thus preserving shareholder value).

Also notice that the responses were not a true/false binary, rather a continuum of opinion (although I would have liked to see a greater gradation). So, while the statement is, perhaps, black and white, your opinion can be at least a couple of shades of gray.

The authors of this study stated that some of the questions are asked in the manner they are just to make a point, to instigate you.

Someone earlier said that perhaps they want to make people think they are more liberal than they really may be. From the responses here, that looks to be a pretty fair statement ... but ... of course, this is a self-selecting survey, isn't it? This means that it is not scientifically sound. To adjudicate the results as scientific, we would need a true random sample, people could not choose to 'opt-out' of the survey. There are of course, several other factors that would need to be considered to be scientific.

So, in that respect, certainly, this survey carries not more weight or validity than let's say the polls on the O'Reilly Factor website.

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Unfortunately there are companies that are going south of the USA border and using practices that are outlawed here in the states. They move the jobs south, to have cheaper labor, only they are creating towns around the factories like they did here in the US, yet there is no sanitation, or very little. Now this is not all companies, it is some few that are really after a few Dollars or Yen or ..., .

There has been great improvement because the Mexican government has added more regulations to help the people working and those living in the surrounding area.

So, given that General Electric has a great health standard today that many companies chase for loss recorded work days. Yet, there history and the history of other companies is not clean by today's standards. They were legal or borderline when the events happened.
:asian:

 

[Ender]

Well I would say corporations can reflect society as a whole. I think most corporations are good citizens just like most people are good citizens. Sure there are those who break the law just like any other person. After all, they are run by people. The problem I have is people trying paint business as some evil entity. If you have tried to run a business as I have, you know that you have to balance all aspects of the business. You have to meet salaries, provide healthcare, try to retain the best people, produce a quality product, and then make a profit. If you make a profit, you can expand the company and add more jobs. If you cannot make a profit, you have to lay people off, improve processes, and try to become more efficient. You sit down with your spreadsheets, try to make rational decisions on all aspects of your business, knowing that your competitor is doing the same thing, and trying to bury you. And after all that, if you make a 3% profit for the year (like most corporations), you've had a good year. But if people find a 401K's growth of 3% paltry...go figure.

On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.

The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.

 

[Thesemindz]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87


This test actually makes me look a lot more middle of the road then I really believe I am. Oh well. I'm all alone as a libertarian anarchist.


-Rob

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well I would say corporations can reflect society as a whole. I think most corporations are good citizens just like most people are good citizens. Sure there are those who break the law just like any other person. After all, they are run by people. The problem I have is people trying paint business as some evil entity. If you have tried to run a business as I have, you know that you have to balance all aspects of the business. You have to meet salaries, provide healthcare, try to retain the best people, produce a quality product, and then make a profit. If you make a profit, you can expand the company and add more jobs. If you cannot make a profit, you have to lay people off, improve processes, and try to become more efficient. You sit down with your spreadsheets, try to make rational decisions on all aspects of your business, knowing that your competitor is doing the same thing, and trying to bury you. And after all that, if you make a 3% profit for the year (like most corporations), you've had a good year. But if people find a 401K's growth of 3% paltry...go figure.

On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.

The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.

Ender,

During college, I was the manager for the owner of a small company. The business did $500,000 plus in slow years. I currently work for a large company, and I help to give the data to the shooters/ decision makers, where we are discussing major programs that cost $140 million to just pay the canclation charges. We ahve to deal with union contracts and what will happen to the jobs, also deal with Governmental negotiations here inteh US and also in other countries for jobs and or sales, etc., ..., .

I also have adopted parents that run a real small restaurant that pays their bills. I have helped them out through my life as cheap labor.

I understand small, medium and large companies.

Companies want to make profit. If the product sucks people will go elsewhere, yet if I can do it dump the by product into a river because there is no law against it, people will do it today, and then deal with the issues tomorrow.

Companies are not evil. Yet, when they close up a plant that has been there for years / decades, they are the bad guy. It does not matter that the footings are from 1898 or 1908 and it cost the most of all plants to heat or cool, and it also has issues with water and air quality for its' employees. Yet, those employees are upset because they now need to move to keep their job, or loose it. Just look at the movie "Roger and Me" to get a feel of how people look at the evil corporations. They make cold hard decisions to make a profit or to stay a float and people sometimes get hurt. To have people down in two states and also another country, to resolve some technical issues, is nto cost effective.

Yet, companies would not have spent the money on Fuel Injection and Control Modules without regulation to control emissions. These emission controls just so happened to get a good by product of better fuel economy. Especially, when the evil corps had the 50 MPG carbeurators .

So, some regulations have not improved the enviroment, they also have improved the product, yet the cost has gone way up. Now the cost is also due to safety issues, and products in the vehicles, also driving by regulations, as well as creator comforts .

Yet, if not intervention had taken place, the improvements we have today woudl not be there.

Just my opinion and experience.

 

[michaeledward]

... On top of that, it behooves a company to act responsibly. If you look at Texaco a few years ago when they had that major discrimination lawsuit, you will see that they lost millons of dollars because of prejudice. Today it makes no sense to act unethical in the short term or the long term. Bad behavior results in brutal public opinion (ie Enron, Martha Stewart, Global Crossing, etc.), which in turn means loss of revenue or worse.

The statement that "it behooves a company to act responsibly" is interesting. A discrimination lawsuit, which cost a company millions of dollars because of prejudice could only come about in a society where there is a strong government that guarantees the rights of the workers. From an economic point of view, and for the good of the company (to increase the shareholders value), wouldn't it make sense to move the operations to a country where there is a less strong government and fewer laws to protect the workers? It would certainly improve the bottom line (profit) ... which would be good for the company (shareholder value). This would allow the company to continue to make a profit in the future .... BUT !

It is not a way to act responsibly. Would not this behavior, which is good for the company, actually be a very irresponsible way to act?

The other thing people fail to recognize is "Consumer Greed". This is what drives companies to find ways to lower prices. Consumers pit companies against each other by taking their business somewhere else solely on the basis of price. If anyone has bought ANYTHING based on a lower price, they are contibuting to this. Sure people lament the passing of the "mom and pop" shops, but what they don't realize is they had a hand in their demise. Off they go to Walmart to get a good deal on some item when they could have spent their money at a smaller store. And who do they blame? Walmart. They don't realize what has to be done to get them that price.

Who the 'Consumer' blames is irrelevant to Capitalistic Markets. Wal-Mart's Vision Statement should be 'To Make Money Now, and in the Future!'. If they can find a way to fulfill this vision, while providing goods and services to consumers at a lower price, that is exactly what the 'Free Market' provides.

Of course, because Wal-Mart operates in a country that has 'Medicaid' (a federal health program for low income families), allows the company to have its employees use the Federal Government to provide Health Care Services, rather than to affect its own bottom line, by providing these services. This behavior, while currently legal, is not really a way for a company to 'Act Responsibly'.

So it seems to me Ender, that you are arguing for a relatively strong role for the Federal Government; there should be laws to protect workers, strong financial oversight of public corporations, and publicly funded health care services to allow for greater competition.

Thanks for the discussion - Mike.

 

[OULobo]

Sorry for choppin up your post Rich, but I only really disagree with certain parts.

So, given that General Electric has a great health standard today that many companies chase for loss recorded work days. Yet, there history and the history of other companies is not clean by today's standards. They were legal or borderline when the events happened.
:asian:

Most of the companies that GE owns and operates are running under other names so GE doesn't get a black eye for their mistakes in those industries. I personally see how GE in particular is loathed in quite a few industries as careless, inefficient, arrogant and constantly avoided if possible, which is hard to do considering they own everything.

yet if I can do it dump the by product into a river because there is no law against it, people will do it today, and then deal with the issues tomorrow.

This is the problem with self regulation of corporations. Because they are large enough to have a huge impact as compared to Billy Bob and his brother burning their garbage and tossing their skunked beer in the river.

Companies are not evil. Yet, when they close up a plant that has been there for years / decades, they are the bad guy. . . . . . They make cold hard decisions to make a profit or to stay a float and people sometimes get hurt.

They aren't evil, just cold and blunt. They base their decisions on bottom lines and forget about things like loyalty, public opinion and morality, all the mushy things. The sad part is that there is no need to run the company that way. There are large privately owned companies that have stupendously happy employees, great community interaction, very good profits and still manage to donate to charitable organizations.

 

[OULobo]

Since we have thoughly strayed into the outsourcing issue. I guess I can bring this up.

I saw on one of the nightly news shows, like 20/20 or 60 min., yesterday, an expose about a computer auction company, like ebay, that was advised to outsource all it's tech issues to India. the owner didn't like the idea so he placed a ad in the paper offering what he could afford for workers. The numbers the show stated were $80,000/yr ave. for an American programmer and $40,000/yr ave. for an Indian one. The owner placed an ad for $40,000/yr. for a local job in a local paper. He got 106 resumes and about half at way over the experience needed. The workers were happy to be employed and the company is now very profitable.

This guy is U.S. jobs to U.S. citizens and is still surviving and making a profit. People in the U.S. will work for less if you offer. The only place where this becomes and issue is when unions own the industry workforce and even they have been forced to re-examine their positions because they are pricing themselves out of the market.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Sorry for choppin up your post Rich, but I only really disagree with certain parts.

No Problem, and I do not have problems with disagreement nor discussions and clarifications.

Most of the companies that GE owns and operates are running under other names so GE doesn't get a black eye for their mistakes in those industries. I personally see how GE in particular is loathed in quite a few industries as careless, inefficient, arrogant and constantly avoided if possible, which is hard to do considering they own everything.

Hmmm, I left this out of the first post, maybe this would help. You get what you measure is a comment in Quality metrics. If you measure lost work days then you come up with ways to avoid lost work days, including not recording the paper cuts, and so forth as they will ruin your metric

And yes, by Measuring GE office building only, and none of the Subsidaries and or manufacturing sites, you get what you want. Figures do not lie, yet you can those who like to stretch the truth to come up with some really cool figures.

i.e. RONA - Return on Net Assets if what is measured at my company. I still cannot get a real good clarification on how this is done. You take all of your assets let us say $1,000,000 and we have $500,000 in debt and liabilities. Now you have a return or earnings of about $250,000 for the year. This would give you a 50% return for RONA, and only a 25% on ROA. So it is better to have more liabilities? This is the part that confused me. And sorry for the side track.

This is the problem with self regulation of corporations. Because they are large enough to have a huge impact as compared to Billy Bob and his brother burning their garbage and tossing their skunked beer in the river.

I agree, regulations are required. That was what I was trying to say. Without regulations there woudl be no emission controls on vehicles. Now if we could only get to the sulfur coal burning power/energy plants.

They aren't evil, just cold and blunt. They base their decisions on bottom lines and forget about things like loyalty, public opinion and morality, all the mushy things. The sad part is that there is no need to run the company that way. There are large privately owned companies that have stupendously happy employees, great community interaction, very good profits and still manage to donate to charitable organizations.

Yes, that make decisions on the bottom line. I agree. And in the long run they can stay around longer and mroe people have jobs, versus the company going under and everyone loosing a job. Yet, for those who loose their job it is tough and personal and it is always easier to blame your problmes on evil somethign or other. oh well.

I do not think we disagree at all or that much, only that I may not have presented my thoughts clearly for you to read,
:asian:

 

[TonyM.]

Just a rerun. "If your young and conservative you have no heart. If your old and liberal you have no brain."

 

[Nightingale]

I'm right there with Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama.

Social liberal, economic moderate leaning towards conservative.

 

[Ender]

The statement that "it behooves a company to act responsibly" is interesting. A discrimination lawsuit, which cost a company millions of dollars because of prejudice could only come about in a society where there is a strong government that guarantees the rights of the workers. From an economic point of view, and for the good of the company (to increase the shareholders value), wouldn't it make sense to move the operations to a country where there is a less strong government and fewer laws to protect the workers? It would certainly improve the bottom line (profit) ... which would be good for the company (shareholder value). This would allow the company to continue to make a profit in the future .... BUT !

It is not a way to act responsibly. Would not this behavior, which is good for the company, actually be a very irresponsible way to act?



Who the 'Consumer' blames is irrelevant to Capitalistic Markets. Wal-Mart's Vision Statement should be 'To Make Money Now, and in the Future!'. If they can find a way to fulfill this vision, while providing goods and services to consumers at a lower price, that is exactly what the 'Free Market' provides.

Of course, because Wal-Mart operates in a country that has 'Medicaid' (a federal health program for low income families), allows the company to have its employees use the Federal Government to provide Health Care Services, rather than to affect its own bottom line, by providing these services. This behavior, while currently legal, is not really a way for a company to 'Act Responsibly'.

So it seems to me Ender, that you are arguing for a relatively strong role for the Federal Government; there should be laws to protect workers, strong financial oversight of public corporations, and publicly funded health care services to allow for greater competition.

Thanks for the discussion - Mike.

Well actually in comparison, one could argue that GOVERNMENTS creat more havoc that any business or individual can. Governments are responsible for starting and fighting wars, using nuclear weapons, human rights abuses, creating famines thru territorial strifes, power struggles, terrorism, genocide, and on and on. Business really doesn't have nearly the power that government has. So, I am in favor of less government. Government has a far far worse track record that business any day of the week.