Political Positions and Religion

[Luveria]

Robbing capitalists isn't the way to help your economy. That removes capital investment, which means less economic growth. If you cared about poverty eventually being decreased, that would matter to you. Encouraging economic growth and investment is the way to reduce poverty. Not taking all the money away from the highest percentile. That's unsustainable, and then you remove the single biggest source of taxable income with a progressive income tax. But your attitude seems to be "fuck progressive taxation, lets just rob the fuck out of the wealthy because I hate that they own more than me! I hate that their businesses failed us!"

You've probably fucked up too in your life. A lot of small businesses fuck up and go under. But it's apparently only worth robbing people when a very large business such as a bank makes a shitty decision, as if there is some magical line that once a business generates revenue past a certain point, it's fair game on them.

*facepalms*

You need to live in an underdeveloped country with problems inherent to almost any similar capitalist machine to understand what I mean. I talked about karma. Of course mere money-making isn't by itself deserveful of criminal acts by any decent morality (even though I'm still for a society without money and private property). But some forms to make the machine work for them while they make money sometimes involve really shitty methods, and I would never pity people who did some especially dirty things. The kinds of dirty things we Argentines and Brazilians know, and that is why we are more left-leaning on average than people on many developed countries.

You really didn't get my point. I am not advocating people being striped over their property for punitive taxation reasons. And I also think Footballand wasn't.

I guess you're emotional about the topic so I will stop here to not be further misinterpreted. I was just trying to make the case Footballand's seemingly ideology isn't exactly very irrational given our sociocultural context and experiences, and that he wasn't really mean toward you, just a bit not used to the house's politeness rules.

Maybe you weren't, but Footballand initially was, and you seemed to be backing him on that, and that was the reason for my hostility.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I've already been called stupid and lazy before resorting to that. I have no reason to be respectful to someone who does to that to me.

Free-market-monger, I didn't insult you, unless saying that your naïvité about how the system works is silly like that of the average anti-communist schoolboy is an insult.

[Luveria]

I've already been called stupid and lazy before resorting to that. I have no reason to be respectful to someone who does to that to me.

Free-market-monger, I didn't insult you, unless saying that your naïvité about how the system works is silly like that of the average anti-communist schoolboy is an insult.

I'm not a free-market monger.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I'm not a free-market monger.

You just seemingly, it appears, implied that societies being victims to the threats of foreign investors leaving unless we obey them like dogs is a legitimate and ethical market practice.

[Luveria]

I'm not a free-market monger.

You just seemingly, it appears, implied that societies being victims to the threats of foreign investors leaving unless we obey them like dogs is a legitimate and ethical market practice.

No, it isn't ethical.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

You just seemingly, it appears, implied that societies being victims to the threats of foreign investors leaving unless we obey them like dogs is a legitimate and ethical market practice.

No, it isn't ethical.

Thank gosh.

So please excuse me for saying your arguments are schoolboy level.

[Liriena]

Now that the worst has passed, I take this opportunity to huggle and kiss both Luveria and my Brazilian friend here.

[Luveria]

No, it isn't ethical.

Thank gosh.

So please excuse me for saying your arguments are schoolboy level.

It's excused. I wasn't defending the bankers that made corrupt and awful business decisions that led to failure. All I was saying was in response to what Footballand was implying, I don't see how forced nationalization is helpful when there are alternatives such as anti-corruption measures and increased government transparency. Some economic disasters are unavoidable after they have already happened, and all that can be done in those situations is take steps to prevent it from happening again while encouraging recovery, and I did not see how jumping to expropriation is helpful for that purpose, no matter how justified it may be if the effects of it aren't helpful in the long-term.

[Footballand]

Luveria:

You say...That removes capital investment, which means less economic growth. If you cared about poverty eventually being decreased, that would matter to you. Encouraging economic growth and investment is the way to reduce poverty...OK

You can explain me why in Argentina whenever foreign investment decreased the poverty fell, and whenever foreign investment increase also increased poverty???

I can explain you why...Here always the foreign investment work through subsidiaries of big companies...most of the investment (near 60 %) are credits...provided by the parent companies...to his subsidiaries...those which devote their earnings to pay such credits...to his parent companies...investment money is becoming less and less and the flow of credit is stopping you ... Crisis ... the subsidiary must make a readjustment of your bills, less maintenance and personal adjustment (ie firings) ... the money disappeared or rather was out of the country...and some years later...the credit again flow from the parent companies to the subsidiaries...and the circle begun again...this is the modus operandis of the vast majority of foreign companies for decades...luckily we beginning to face them...that way?? Simple, I don't need more you here...

[Blasveck]

Luveria:

You say...That removes capital investment, which means less economic growth. If you cared about poverty eventually being decreased, that would matter to you. Encouraging economic growth and investment is the way to reduce poverty...OK

You can explain me why in Argentina whenever foreign investment decreased the poverty fell, and whenever foreign investment also increased poverty???

I can explain you why...Here always the foreign investment work through subsidiaries of big companies...most of the investment (near 60 %) are credits...provided by the parent companies...to his subsidiaries...those which devote their earnings to pay such credits...to his parent companies...investment money is becoming less and less and the flow of credit is stopping you ... Crisis ... the subsidiary must make a readjustment of your bills, less maintenance and personal adjustment (ie firings) ... the money disappeared or rather was out of the country...and some years later...the credit again flow from the parent companies to the subsidiaries...and the circle begun again...this is the modus operandis of the vast majority of foreign companies for decades...luckily we beginning to face them...that way?? Simple, I don't need more you here...

Football, I have to ask.

Do you even economics?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Now that the worst has passed, I take this opportunity to huggle and kiss both Luveria and my Brazilian friend here.

Yours will be always welcomed, Liri. :3

[Luveria]

Luveria:

You say...That removes capital investment, which means less economic growth. If you cared about poverty eventually being decreased, that would matter to you. Encouraging economic growth and investment is the way to reduce poverty...OK

You can explain me why in Argentina whenever foreign investment decreased the poverty fell, and whenever foreign investment increase also increased poverty???

I can explain you why...Here always the foreign investment work through subsidiaries of big companies...most of the investment (near 60 %) are credits...provided by the parent companies...to his subsidiaries...those which devote their earnings to pay such credits...to his parent companies...investment money is becoming less and less and the flow of credit is stopping you ... Crisis ... the subsidiary must make a readjustment of your bills, less maintenance and personal adjustment (ie firings) ... the money disappeared or rather was out of the country...and some years later...the credit again flow from the parent companies to the subsidiaries...and the circle begun again...this is the modus operandis of the vast majority of foreign companies for decades...luckily we beginning to face them...that way?? Simple, I don't need more you here...

Do you have sources for that?

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Thank gosh.

So please excuse me for saying your arguments are schoolboy level.

It's excused. I wasn't defending the bankers that made corrupt and awful business decisions that led to failure. All I was saying was in response to what Footballand was implying, I don't see how forced nationalization is helpful when there are alternatives such as anti-corruption measures and increased government transparency. Some economic disasters are unavoidable after they have already happened, and all that can be done in those situations is take steps to prevent it from happening again while encouraging recovery, and I did not see how jumping to expropriation is helpful for that purpose, no matter how justified it may be if the effects of it aren't helpful in the long-term.

Anti-corruption in Brazil would only be fruitless and is the reactionary platform the big media uses to not properly cover what the social movements here have to say.

We would need constitutional and juridical reform for that. Right now we are suffering a parlamentary dictatorship where those who don't let the shit take place can't do anything inside Brasília. Lula wanted to do this to help the poor just a little bit and now he's treated like he being covered in mud until the neck is merely his fault rather than something inherent to our political system.

[Luveria]

It's excused. I wasn't defending the bankers that made corrupt and awful business decisions that led to failure. All I was saying was in response to what Footballand was implying, I don't see how forced nationalization is helpful when there are alternatives such as anti-corruption measures and increased government transparency. Some economic disasters are unavoidable after they have already happened, and all that can be done in those situations is take steps to prevent it from happening again while encouraging recovery, and I did not see how jumping to expropriation is helpful for that purpose, no matter how justified it may be if the effects of it aren't helpful in the long-term.

Anti-corruption in Brazil would only be fruitless and is the reactionary platform the big media uses to not properly cover what the social movements here have to say.

We would need constitutional and juridical reform for that. Right now we are suffering a parlamentary dictatorship where those who don't let the shit take place can't do anything inside Brasília. Lula wanted to do this to help the poor just a little bit and now he's treated like he being covered in mud until the neck is merely his fault rather than something inherent to our political system.

And Brazil was once a monarchy. Things were worse before as people didn't have much say at all previously. I know the corruption is quite bad, but it has been decreasing gradually over time. Corruption generally decreases along with economies growing, as the most corrupt countries are often the most poor.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Anti-corruption in Brazil would only be fruitless and is the reactionary platform the big media uses to not properly cover what the social movements here have to say.

We would need constitutional and juridical reform for that. Right now we are suffering a parlamentary dictatorship where those who don't let the shit take place can't do anything inside Brasília. Lula wanted to do this to help the poor just a little bit and now he's treated like he being covered in mud until the neck is merely his fault rather than something inherent to our political system.

And Brazil was once a monarchy. Things were worse before as people didn't have much say at all previously. I know the corruption is quite bad, but it has been decreasing gradually over time. Corruption generally decreases along with economies growing, as the most corrupt countries are often the most poor.

We would need a people that actively knows how to and wants to help itself and its country.

Otherwise, why would the people who profit from the situation make a constitutional and juridical reform that would make them lose their privileges?

[Luveria]

And Brazil was once a monarchy. Things were worse before as people didn't have much say at all previously. I know the corruption is quite bad, but it has been decreasing gradually over time. Corruption generally decreases along with economies growing, as the most corrupt countries are often the most poor.

We would need a people that actively knows how to and wants to help itself and its country.

Otherwise, why would the people who profit from the situation make a constitutional and juridical reform that would make them lose their privileges?

The US needs to move past first-past-the-post and Canada needs to abolish its Senate. Those things aren't going to happen until enough people vote for parties to make those things possible, and I expect it will the same for Brazil with its constitutional and judicial reform.

[Footballand]

You can explain me why in Argentina whenever foreign investment decreased the poverty fell, and whenever foreign investment increase also increased poverty???

Do you have sources for that?[/quote]

Inversión extranjera directa en la Argentina. Crisis, reestructuración y nuevas tendencias después de la convertibilidad (In spanish)

All other sources in my own books

Looking if I find one in English, if not tomorrow I will sent you a mail with the links. I promise

Here is too late...really Luveria... apologies...i would try to practice more my english...I see you tomorrow...please remind me

[Luveria]

Inversión extranjera directa en la Argentina. Crisis, reestructuración y nuevas tendencias después de la convertibilidad (In spanish)

All other sources in my own books

Looking if I find one in English, if not tomorrow I will sent you a mail with the links. I promise

Here is too late...really Luveria... apologies...i would try to practice more my english...I see you tomorrow...please remind me

Goodnight.

[Footballand]

Goodnight.

Excuse me by the bad moment

Goodnight to you and to all

[The Steel Magnolia]

Fucking laughing at the last category.

I'm center, center left and i'm religious.

What?
This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Just how many people identify as such. NSG is a huge echo chamber. I'd know, I used to be in it.

[Grenartia]

What?
This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Just how many people identify as such. NSG is a huge echo chamber. I'd know, I used to be in it.

Just a plurality.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Firstly, you completely ignored the part in my argument where I pointed out to you how Democratic Socialism is the better system for creating upliftment of the poor and the slow process of ending poverty.

I apologise, but I don't know much about the Nordic countries so there isn't much I can comment on there. But I do know this: they're not really socialist. There's a significantly large social safety net and partial nationalisation of a few 'essential' industries, but markets are relatively free there. They're actually much less regulated than the US.

Also, I wasn't necessarily advocating an abolition of welfare. I'm not that radical yet ^_^ I was pressing that localised welfare, either government-funded or charitable, is much more effective at helping the poor than another faceless, wasteful federal program.

I was mainly referring to America in my arguments because it's the country, socio-economically, that I know the most about. But if you want me to detail my knowledge on how much capitalism has helped the poor in Chile and Botswana, then I could do so gladly.

Now to the part of my argument you deemed worthy of reply:

• 1) Your argument points out some valid points on the lack of efficient having an effect. You also point out that the banks failed and that this played a significant role in starting the depression. And that was because their wasn't enough government regulation in banking or enough honest bankers to run them. They loaned out much more money than they had and simply printed money with nothing to back it. And then when people suddenly finally wanted to take their money out, the banks realised they only had enough for some of the people. Many families lost all the money they had invested because of unscrupulous banking practises Banking doesn't necessarily need government regulation, it just needs honest bankers who only loan what can be paid back within a reasonable amount of time, invest cleverly with the money banked by their clients (and are willing to pay them back with their own money if they lose it through bad investments) and were currency is backed by only gold, and possibly silver.
• 2) I'm finding it difficult to understand what you are actually saying. Let me just explain my understanding of it. Under Herbert Hoover there is the Great Depression. He assures people that "Prosperity is just around the Corner" but the economy rises only slowly from it's collapse and no one trusts putting their money in the banks anymore (surprise, surprise). Then FDR takes over. He closes down a huge number of banks and then invests in the few left deemed as trustworthy, and people slowly start to follow his example. He creates a number of, sometimes completely needless, government projects to pay these newly employed people at least some money. But all of this did something else for the economy, it helped restore people's faith in it. And that along with government assistance and government initiatives helped the economy back onto it's feet. If you have a better suggestion on how the economy could have been saved then please do share.

1. This isn't the case of banks needing higher regulation. This is a case of the banks in question violating the contract they were bound to by their customers. If they don't even have enough funds to reimburse their customers with, they shouldn't be trading altogether. I do agree with you in a sense, though, that banks should be held accountable to the law.

The quickly collapsing banking system did exacerbate the effects of the Wall Street Crash, and in effect the Great Depression. But all of this could've been avoided had that dastardly tariff never passed through Congress.

2.I was detailing the various 'successful' New Deal programs that have been attributed to ending the Depression. Herbert Hoover was a spineless RINO who instituted his own dimestore New Deal. He increased taxes, created a mini-AAA, dispersed relief for political purposes, etc. I say dimestore because it was a half-assed attempt at ending the crisis. At least Roosevelt, however economically destructive he may have been, followed through on his plan.

In many ways the Great Depression was the price to pay for a decade of mis-allocation of resources by the Federal Reserve. Recessions are painful economic healing processes. In my opinion, had taxes been cut back to 1928 levels, industry de-regulated and tariffs renegotiated much quicker, a recovery would have come a lot faster. This worked in 1897, it worked in 1921 and it worked in 1981. (Although needless to say, these recessions were much less serious so recovery came much quicker.) The New Deal should've been called the Raw Deal. It turned what would've been a short depression into a long, painful ten years wrought with misery and economic destruction. The effects of Roosevelt's confidence-boosting techniques are dubious, because the only real recovery came when World War II put Americans back to work towards the war effort.

I think we should move this to the telegrams before this becomes any more of a thread-jack. Soon enough we'll be debating the pros and cons of abortion! x)

Ya I think moving this somewhere else would be better as I still strongly disagree with you. As a wealthy white South African I have personally seen the massive rich - poor gap in this country. The poor in this country live in shacks made of nailed together corrugated iron, they have to pay large sums of money to attend the private schools and hospitals I have access to. They must instead attend schools and go to clinics that are ranked amongst the poorest in the world. Government corruption and tax dodging some of the wealthiest in the land is causing this. The only way to truly fix the problem is getting rid of the corrupt officials, replacing them with hard-working ones and then putting more money into education and healthcare to revive it. The simple fact is that most wealthier families would rather spend extra money on a new car or a relaxing holiday or some extra electronic gadgets than on helping the students of the poor schools in the Mpunalanga Province who just never got their school textbooks. The rich just blame the government and the government just blame the rich and the poor, who in my country make up the majority, are forgotten about. Without good education people can't get good jobs, and without good jobs they can't pay for good education for their children, and so the cycle of poverty continues. A nation should only be considered as wealthy as it's poorest citizen, only as educated as it's most uneducated and only as happy as it's most depressed, because every life matters. And if you can get that to work under a classic libertarian society then that would mean your rich are the only in the world to my knowledge who would choose buying an army load of blankets for the homeless over a new car for themselves.

[New Rogernomics]

Fit in no option as listed. Open to self governing religious communities (so long as there are no human rights violations), and not exclusively libertarian or authoritarian politically/religiously.

[New Socialist South Africa]

You fail to explain you argument, then.

Of course I failed to explain my argument. Because I didn't make one. I simply used your tactic of baseless assertions as a structure for which to create my own.

HAHAHAHAHA. That's a new one, a Christian blaming an Agnostic of baseless assertions. Which of my assertions are baseless my little Theistical friend?

[The Archregimancy]

I think the problem with the poll - at least for me, and acknowledging others may well disagree - lies in both the authoritarian / libertarian dichotomy and the implied universal applicability of "centrist" across both selected political spectrums; which is a shame given the effort the OP makes to turn the poll into something universally applicable.

The USOT carefully acknowledges that "right wing" and "left wing" are vague terms, and leaves that for posters to define themselves; he also offers a "centrist" option. While not everyone may agree with his attempt to lecture self-identified agnostics about what they believe (something which both theists and atheists have a tendency to do), his careful outlining of what the religious-based terms mean in the parameters of this specific poll mean that participants can at least answer in the intended spirit. Similarly, we all know that this poll isn't going to be remotely scientific, and we can take it as just a thought exercise applicable to NSG alone rather than having any broader applicability.

But while the USOT allows that "authoritarian" and "libertarian" can mean "whatever you want them to mean", there's no real option for anyone who doesn't identify with either of the latter, unless "centrist" is supposed to be universally applicable across both the left/right-wing spectrum and the implied authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. This is, regrettably, inadequate given that left/right-wing centrists might consider themselves authoritarian or libertarian, while someone who rejects authoritarian/libertarian labels (even with the "they can mean whatever you want them to mean' caveat) might well consider themselves to be left of centre - and I might well have myself in mind with the latter example.

And yes, I know there are only 10 poll options, but on that basis, the poll is both inherently flawed and ultimately unanswerable; for me at least, anyway.

Summed up, I'm not sure this attempt to rigidly categorise the broad spectrum of attitudes towards these issues across three dichotomies is in any way useful or interesting; though the OP does potentially allow us to speculate about how the USOT might choose to classify the three dichotomies included here, which isn't wholly without interest.



Just one other comment on a wholly separate issue:

Of course I failed to explain my argument. Because I didn't make one. I simply used your tactic of baseless assertions as a structure for which to create my own.

HAHAHAHAHA. That's a new one, a Christian blaming an Agnostic of baseless assertions. Which of my assertions are baseless my little Theistical friend?

If New Socialist South Africa thinks he's going to win a theological/philosophical argument with Distruzio by being incredibly patronising, he might be in for a shock.