Here's a real political compass test

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

my results
http://www.people-press.org/quiz/politi ... y/results/
Faith-Family left

[Threlizdun]

Capitalism necessitates consumption and expansion. It is the very definition of "unsustainable".

The economy is only in existence because of limited resources. If there was no limit of resources there would be no need to economize. Expansion and consumption are necessary to accommodate for the population increases and so fourth. Competing private enterprises drive the need to innovate and utilize resources more efficiently to create a cheaper yet better product. An economically stagnant nation is a sure way to failure, and the definition of stagnation is the lack of expansion or consumption.

While there is a certain amount of socialistic ideas incorporated into any economy and no economy is ran by a single economic train of thought, the means of production and the allocation of resources should mostly be in the hands of corporations with sufficient Government oversight to make sure it benefits the people and it is sustainable over a long period of time. I.E the federal reserve, environmental regulations, civil rights, etc.

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

[Ripoll]

Maybe what you think you believe in and what the media has influenced you to believe are the same yet different from reality, and the morals you hold to be true align with what reality actually is and this quiz reflects the reality of what you should believe in and vote for if you are an American

Wait, what?

I hope that eye roll is implying sarcasm...

What I'm trying to say is that maybe your responses genuinely reflect what your train of thought is, but you don't actually know what's going on in politics and that's why you feel like you disagree with how you have been assessed.

[Calimera II]

The economy is only in existence because of limited resources. If there was no limit of resources there would be no need to economize. Expansion and consumption are necessary to accommodate for the population increases and so fourth. Competing private enterprises drive the need to innovate and utilize resources more efficiently to create a cheaper yet better product. An economically stagnant nation is a sure way to failure, and the definition of stagnation is the lack of expansion or consumption.

While there is a certain amount of socialistic ideas incorporated into any economy and no economy is ran by a single economic train of thought, the means of production and the allocation of resources should mostly be in the hands of corporations with sufficient Government oversight to make sure it benefits the people and it is sustainable over a long period of time. I.E the federal reserve, environmental regulations, civil rights, etc.

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

Nope. Government Expenditure and Minimum Wages push prices more up than enterprises, the price-mechanism will always find an equilibrium.

[Threlizdun]

Wait, what?

I hope that eye roll is implying sarcasm...

What I'm trying to say is that maybe your responses genuinely reflect what your train of thought is, but you don't actually know what's going on in politics and that's why you feel like you disagree with how you have been assessed.

No, liberalism is a distinct political theory with various socioeconomic implications, among them a support for a market capitalist economy. This quiz only applies to liberals, be they classical liberals, social liberals, conservative liberals or so forth. It applies to literally no one else. It discounts most political thought in history.

[Ripoll]

The economy is only in existence because of limited resources. If there was no limit of resources there would be no need to economize. Expansion and consumption are necessary to accommodate for the population increases and so fourth. Competing private enterprises drive the need to innovate and utilize resources more efficiently to create a cheaper yet better product. An economically stagnant nation is a sure way to failure, and the definition of stagnation is the lack of expansion or consumption.

While there is a certain amount of socialistic ideas incorporated into any economy and no economy is ran by a single economic train of thought, the means of production and the allocation of resources should mostly be in the hands of corporations with sufficient Government oversight to make sure it benefits the people and it is sustainable over a long period of time. I.E the federal reserve, environmental regulations, civil rights, etc.

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

Well modern nations completely disagree with you and socialistic failures in the past should have been reason enough to stay clear from Government operated economies

the question now isn't if capitalism should be used as the primary economic system, it's what socialistic ideas should be implemented and to what extent. You see while economics is not a scientific form of study, we have natural experiments. Almost all of them confirm the fact that humans naturally privatize, and consumption as well as prices allocating resources is the most efficient form of markets operating.

The thing we need to do now, is taking this exemplary economic phenomena and make it work for us rather than the interests of the top 1% We also need to make it incorporate green energy, which we've recently been successful in doing. This is all done through pragmatic regulations and common sense reform.

[Ravenstor]

This test seems quite flawed in that it perpetuates the "there's only left wing vs. right wing" and that independents are all centrists. Yeah, it's a "real political compass test" if your entire political worldview exists purely within the Beltway narrative. In the real world, however, there is much greater variety.

mehhhh

Republicans and democrats both pretty much tie up at 45% and the remaining are independents with roughly only 3 or 4% being third partiers so no it's pretty representative of reality.

And those GOP and Democratic voters still only make up a minority of eligible voters and poll after poll suggests the vast majority want something different. Just because the system is rigged to favor the two-party duopoly, other positions do not cease to exist. This test is based on a very narrow view of ideology.

[Themiclesia]

Next Generation Left: by most standards, less the NS-standard, I am young, and I consider myself financially comfortable, especially compared to the rampant poverty that is occurring across the globe.

Were it not for my environmental views (mostly I take an apathetic view of the environment), I think I should have landed solid liberal.

[Threlizdun]

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

Nope. Government Expenditure and Minimum Wages push prices more up than enterprises, the price-mechanism will always find an equilibrium.

I am advocating socialism, not Keynesian economic strategies, though government spending and minimum wages absolutely do help the economy by increasing spending power and the quality and quantity of services available to the populace. Belief that the price-mechanism will always find an equilibrium is ignorant if not delusional.

[Ripoll]

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

Nope. Government Expenditure and Minimum Wages push prices more up than enterprises, the price-mechanism will always find an equilibrium.

Well it's not that consistent but for the most part this train of thought is correct.

The most widely accepted form of this is neo-classical synthesis that takes the micro parts of classical economics and the macro part of the Keynesian school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_synthesis

There are some flaws with it however that led me to subscribe to New Keynesian thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Keynesian_economics

[Greater-London]

The problem with all these quizes is that they offer two overly simplified points and you have to chose which one is "closer"; the problem is that very often you can be equally far away from each of them OR so marginally closer to one it doesn't really matter. Some of the question in this quiz are also pretty much exactly the same ...

Reagrless im a "Young Outsider" whatever that really means.

[Arcturus Novus]

This test seems quite flawed in that it perpetuates the "there's only left wing vs. right wing" and that independents are all centrists. Yeah, it's a "real political compass test" if your entire political worldview exists purely within the Beltway narrative. In the real world, however, there is much greater variety.

mehhhh

Republicans and democrats both pretty much tie up at 45% and the remaining are independents with roughly only 3 or 4% being third partiers so no it's pretty representative of reality.

You do realize that not everyone lives in the United States, correct?

[Themiclesia]

I'm so inconspicuous this time

[MERIZoC]

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

Well modern nations completely disagree with you and socialistic failures in the past should have been reason enough to stay clear from Government operated economies

the question now isn't if capitalism should be used as the primary economic system, it's what socialistic ideas should be implemented and to what extent. You see while economics is not a scientific form of study, we have natural experiments. Almost all of them confirm the fact that humans naturally privatize, and consumption as well as prices allocating resources is the most efficient form of markets operating.

Modern nations are only evidencing what we're saying. Resources are growing scarcer. Poverty is getting worse. What socialistic failures have you observed? The vast majority of major economies throughout history have either been state capitalism or some form of market capitalist system.

If privatization is natural human behavior, why has it only arisen in the past 10,000 years or so?

[Ripoll]

mehhhh

Republicans and democrats both pretty much tie up at 45% and the remaining are independents with roughly only 3 or 4% being third partiers so no it's pretty representative of reality.

And those GOP and Democratic voters still only make up a minority of eligible voters and poll after poll suggests the vast majority want something different. Just because the system is rigged to favor the two-party duopoly, other positions do not cease to exist. This test is based on a very narrow view of ideology.

Third party support is shrinking not growing, and once the economy takes off again political support for both parties will increase. However you may be on to something regarding moderates and independents and it will be the party that is less extreme in their ideology that ends up winning the people.

A two party system is good, it makes things easier and makes it harder for socialists to screw us up like they did Europe.

[Ripoll]

Well modern nations completely disagree with you and socialistic failures in the past should have been reason enough to stay clear from Government operated economies

the question now isn't if capitalism should be used as the primary economic system, it's what socialistic ideas should be implemented and to what extent. You see while economics is not a scientific form of study, we have natural experiments. Almost all of them confirm the fact that humans naturally privatize, and consumption as well as prices allocating resources is the most efficient form of markets operating.

Modern nations are only evidencing what we're saying. Resources are growing scarcer. Poverty is getting worse. What socialistic failures have you observed? The vast majority of major economies throughout history have either been state capitalism or some form of market capitalist system.

If privatization is natural human behavior, why has it only arisen in the past 10,000 years or so?

Well population is sort of you know, growing? More people means more resources needed and we will always need to expand and consume, we just need to change how we do it. Again here's a really good video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhSC7LyEbjU

We need to find market solutions to the issues of global warming and resource scarcity. Frankly the USSR (perfect example of socialistic failure) would have consumed even more than we do while producing even less thus forcing it to consume even more.

[Greater-London]

Poverty is getting worse.

Bit ambiguous and it isn't really. Globally speaking most of us are actually getting richer; the divide between rich and poor is growing but that's not the same as increasing poverty.

In the western world most of us have seen our living standards stagnate or go down true but we are still enjoying a standard of living higher than our parents and grandparents.

[Ripoll]

mehhhh

Republicans and democrats both pretty much tie up at 45% and the remaining are independents with roughly only 3 or 4% being third partiers so no it's pretty representative of reality.

You do realize that not everyone lives in the United States, correct?

I addressed this in another comment referring to America and not America.

On a more serious note, I get that but I am American thus I would accommodate for my own political environment no?

[The Serbian Empire]

Young Outsider, and that's how I end up in the Libertarian ranks. I see some aspects as good, but neither Democrat or Republican has the people's interests at heart.

[Virenna]

Business Conservative. Sounds about right, but I'm opposed to immigration.

[Prezelly]

How accurate can his be when there are only two answers to many of the questions?

[Free Detroit]

No, liberalism is a distinct political theory with various socioeconomic implications, among them a support for a market capitalist economy. This quiz only applies to liberals, be they classical liberals, social liberals, conservative liberals or so forth. It applies to literally no one else. It discounts most political thought in history.

Thanks for saving me the typing. Yes. This.

[The Serbian Empire]

The economy is only in existence because of limited resources. If there was no limit of resources there would be no need to economize. Expansion and consumption are necessary to accommodate for the population increases and so fourth. Competing private enterprises drive the need to innovate and utilize resources more efficiently to create a cheaper yet better product. An economically stagnant nation is a sure way to failure, and the definition of stagnation is the lack of expansion or consumption.

While there is a certain amount of socialistic ideas incorporated into any economy and no economy is ran by a single economic train of thought, the means of production and the allocation of resources should mostly be in the hands of corporations with sufficient Government oversight to make sure it benefits the people and it is sustainable over a long period of time. I.E the federal reserve, environmental regulations, civil rights, etc.

Capitalism does not drive innovation or help address scarcity. Capitalism promotes inefficiency and stagnation. These practices are profitable because they offer an increase in prices. The central focus of capitalism is maximum accumulation of capital, not sustainable and efficient use of resources. To address scarcity we must treat all resources as belonging to humanity in common.

And socialism promotes laziness and heavy-handed government. The USSR collapsed because the quality of labor declines when a better talent earns no more than the worst talent in the same position. That created inefficiency and stagnation...

[Papait]

Too bad its so america centric

[Calimera II]

Too bad its so america centric

I agree with you.