PDA

View Full Version : Political compasses and other online politics tests.



Kevin Bonham
17-10-2005, 06:37 PM
Had a thread about this on the old forum here (http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=non-chess;action=display;num=1070608136) just before we moved to chesschat. I'll copy my first post straight from there for those who haven't seen the thread before:


This is a rather nifty model for assessing people's political views on a two-dimensional scale. Like any model it's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the tired old left/right nonsense. If any posters here would like to take the test - particularly those who are active on politics, war and religion threads - I'd be interested to see what you got. I've even written down some advance guesses for some particular posters, which I expect to be very inaccurate given the limited range of issues covered here.

Warnings - some of the questions (c.40) are a bit curly and may take some thought. Also there are no "correct"/"incorrect" answers, just a series of statements that you can agree or disagree with. It doesn't let you leave questions out.

My result:

Economic Left/Right: -1.68
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

Now there is a new Australian Politics one (but it is only the test version!):

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?page_id=206

This gives you a rating for each Australian political party, as well as general left/right scores and left/right breakdowns for economic issues, social issues and traditional values.

Here are my results on this one:

One Nation 43.5
Family First 27.6
National 35.1
Liberal 50.0
ALP 69.0
Aus Dems 78.8
Aus Greens 70.5

overall alignment -44.5 (left)
economic policy 4.2 (centre)
social policy -1.1 (centre)
traditional values -100 (extreme left) :cool:

Based on some of the above scores I think it needs more work. In particular I found I was answering "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" to every second question and thus the issues that I felt really deeply about - as opposed to having a strong opinion but it not being a real vote-shifter - were not being picked out. Hence some of the party scores above are higher than I think they should be.

Have fun!

jase
17-10-2005, 07:13 PM
Thanks Kev.

Obviously the measurements are a little crude but it's as much infotainment as it is a survey of the political spectrum.

My results were not overly dissimilar to your own:

One Nation 51.3
Family First 48.7
National 46.3
Liberal 56.6
ALP 68.3
Democrats 77.7
Aus Greens 66.6

overall alignment -21.9 (centre-left)
economic policy -14.7 (centre-left)
social policy -13.5 (centrist)
traditional values -50 (left)

Jase

Alan Shore
17-10-2005, 08:01 PM
Some of those questions were difficult cos they were too black and white.. also, this question:

27. Crime is caused by a breakdown in traditional values and individuals not taking responsibility for their own actions

I'd say no to the first part but a big yes to the second part, so that was kind of ambiguous.

Anyway:

One Nation 46.3%
Family First 39.8%
National Party 43%
Liberal Party 56%
Labor Party 65.5%
Australian Democrats 58%
The Greens 52.9%


overall alignment -18.8% (centre-left)

economic policy 2.1%
social policy 4.5%.
traditional values -36.4%.

Denis_Jessop
17-10-2005, 09:54 PM
The trick with these things is to answer the questions quickly without thinking too hard otherwise you find the questions are unanswerable.

Try to beat this result.

One Nation 34.5
Family First 36.1
National 17.1
Liberal 32.3
Labor 69
Aus Dem 81.7
Greens 87.8

Political Outlook -74.2 = far left
Economic Policy -73.6 = far left
Social Policy -55 = left
Trad values -83.7 = far left.

Patria o Muerte! Venceremos!

DJ

rob
17-10-2005, 10:19 PM
One Nation 71.6
Family First 70.0
National 71.8
Liberal 58.9
Labor 42.5
Aus Dem 18.2
Greens 34.9

Political Outlook 29 = centre right
Economic Policy 19.9 = centre right
Social Policy 12.1 = centrist
Trad values 67.9 = right wing.

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2005, 10:27 PM
Missed the URL for the original Political Compass test in my above quote, it is

www.politicalcompass.org

Re the Aus Politics test, there are always troubles with answering some of these sorts of questions. I think the sliding agree/disagree scale is a good one in this respect. For instance sometimes I agreed with the idea that a given service should be restricted to low-income earners but disagreed with the present Government's methods of assessing who constitutes a low-income earner. (In times past when I have been such I have found it so difficult to demonstrate that I have not bothered.)

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2005, 10:30 PM
Aus Dem 18.2
Greens 34.9

That is interesting, that someone could get a generally right-leaning set of scores but come up with Greens well ahead of Democrats.

PHAT
17-10-2005, 10:42 PM
One Nation 69.6%
The Greens 66.8%
Australian Democrats 62.9%
Labor Party 62%
Family First 59.7%
Liberal Party 39.8%
National Party 36%

political outlook - centre-left
economic policy - left-wing
social policy - centre
traditional values- centre-left

?!?!?! How come I average at "centre left" but align with One Nation

Kevin Bonham
17-10-2005, 11:11 PM
One Nation 69.6%
The Greens 66.8%
Australian Democrats 62.9%
Labor Party 62%
Family First 59.7%
Liberal Party 39.8%
National Party 36%

political outlook - centre-left
economic policy - left-wing
social policy - centre
traditional values- centre-left

?!?!?! How come I average at "centre left" but align with One Nation

Very strange results. I suspect it's because many One Nation economic policies are actually very leftist. So you have that and your "anti-PC" views on many social issues and I guess that's the easiest box for that combination of views it can find for you.

Garvinator
18-10-2005, 12:01 AM
One Nation 56.8%
Family First 38.6%
National Party 46.2%
Liberal Party 54.5%
Labor Party 68.5%
Australian Democrats 71.8%
The Greens 62.6%

Family First last by a long way :clap:

Spiny Norman
18-10-2005, 07:55 AM
One Nation 61.3%
Family First 60.4%
National 66.4%
Liberal 78.5%
ALP 40.4%
Aus Dems 31.2%
Aus Greens 21.3%

overall alignment 43.5% (right)
economic policy 46.6% (right)
social policy 40.8% (centre-right)
traditional values 51.3% (right)

No surprises there! (except I'm just a teensy-bit of a softy when it comes to social policies) :)

Watto
18-10-2005, 08:49 AM
The trick with these things is to answer the questions quickly without thinking too hard otherwise you find the questions are unanswerable. DJ

Yes, I couldn’t figure out whether to be go for the more neutral response or to strongly agree/disagree… I ended up changing tack halfway through! :)

For what it’s worth:
Political outlook –73.8 far left-wing position
Economic policy –69.9% left-wing
Social policy –79.3% far left-wing
Traditional values –60% left wing

The exact percentages came up blank when I did the test but it went something like this:

Greens over 80%
Democrats just under 75%
ALP just over 75%
Lib just over 25%
National under 20%
FFP 52%
ONP about 40%

Dozy
18-10-2005, 09:36 AM
One Nation 70.5%
Family First 49.2%
National Party 65.3%
Liberal Party 84.2%
Labor Party 66.9%
Australian Democrats 57.8%
The Greens 50.7%

This was a surprise to me. Somewhere over the years I've moved from left to right. Maybe it's just a reaction to political correctness.

71% to One Nation was a surprise -- I didn't even like Pauline till the Libs/Nationals locked her up for stealing their voters! (Family first finishing last wasn't a surprise but getting almost 50% agreement certainly was.)

political orientation 8.3% centre
social policy 25.1% centre-right
economic policy 33.8% centre-right
traditional values -5.2% centre

Does this mean my friends won't like me any more?

Watto
18-10-2005, 09:54 AM
One Nation 70.5%
Family First 49.2%
National Party 65.3%
Liberal Party 84.2%
Labor Party 66.9%
Australian Democrats 57.8%
The Greens 50.7%

This was a surprise to me. Somewhere over the years I've moved from left to right. Maybe it's just a reaction to political correctness.

71% to One Nation was a surprise -- I didn't even like Pauline till the Libs/Nationals locked her up for stealing their voters! (Family first finishing last wasn't a surprise but getting almost 50% agreement certainly was.)

political orientation 8.3% centre
social policy 25.1% centre-right
economic policy 33.8% centre-right
traditional values -5.2% centre

Does this mean my friends won't like me any more?

hehe, I'm sure they'll still talk to you. I was a bit surprised by some of my results too.

Ian Rout
18-10-2005, 10:11 AM
My scores were

One Nation 53.2%
Family First 36.1%
National Party 51.9%
Liberal Party 72.5%
Labor Party 75.5%
Australian Democrats 59.2%
The Greens 57.4%

political outlook: -21.9 (centre-left)
economic policy: -2.6 (centre)
social policy: -10.5 (centre)
traditional values: -56.1 (left)

I was surprised that I put so many stronglys because I didn't think I strongly
believed anything much, but then I suppose you can strongly agree with a statement without it being something that you get excited about. Maybe if they asked you to "passionately agree" my answers would be different.

But I wasn't surprised that everything comes out fairly average, except Traditional Values where my score is misleading. Probably they should put this term in quotes to indicate that they are using it in the headline or Spanish Inquisition sense.

Like Denis says, you should move quickly or you won't be able to answer the questions at all.

rob
18-10-2005, 11:51 AM
I appear to be the only one here to score 70+ for ON & FF & Nat. However, I consider that I have become far less right wing in the last 5 years.

pballard
18-10-2005, 11:56 AM
One Nation 48.5%
Family First 66.9%
National Party 32.4%
Liberal Party 42%
Labor Party 63.1%
Australian Democrats 66.6%
The Greens 58.2%

Political outlook -5.9%, centrist
economic policy -20.6%. centre-left
social policy -37.6%. centre-left
traditional values 10.9%. centrist

Rather disappointed that One Nation outpolled Liberal and National, but then their policies are a mixed bag.

While the author is to be commended on trying to write the test, there were a number of strange questions (is there even a gun debate in Australia?) or vague (what does it mean to think JH has been a good PM?) and some big ticket items weren't even mentioned (most obviously Iraq, but also global warming, foreign aid, long term asylum seeker detention, drought relief...). Also some questions were double barreled (e.g. what does "do more in the war against terrorism" mean? One can be in support of gay civil unions but against gay marriage. etc.)

Watto
18-10-2005, 12:23 PM
While the author is to be commended on trying to write the test, there were a number of strange questions (is there even a gun debate in Australia?) or vague (what does it mean to think JH has been a good PM?) and some big ticket items weren't even mentioned (most obviously Iraq, but also global warming, foreign aid, long term asylum seeker detention, drought relief...). Also some questions were double barreled (e.g. what does "do more in the war against terrorism" mean? One can be in support of gay civil unions but against gay marriage. etc.)

There has been a gun debate since Port Arthur although it’s gone quiet again.

I agree there were quite a number of strange questions and I think that would have skewed the results. I found myself answering a handful of questions based on my disagreement with the way the question was put. I actually think that it’s okay for people seeking asylum to be detained for a short-term initial period of a couple of months to determine their claim but the question was so lazily phrased (just unthinkingly adopting the government line that people seeking asylum are illegal immigrants- an argument that in itself has been controversial) that I disagreed with it on principle.

Oepty
18-10-2005, 06:19 PM
My Results were,

One Nation 59%
Family First 81.4%
National 45.7%
Liberal 57.8%
Labour 52.9%
Democrats 54%
Greens 46%

Political Outlook : Centre (2.9%)
Economic Policy: Centre (-10.9%)
Social Policy: Centre (2.4%)
Traditional Values: Right (53%)

I think my views are so extreme on some issues that any answer I gave to some of the questions would be misleading and some the answers I gave probably had the opposite effect on the scale to what they were supposed to do.
I am not really interesting in any politics as far as taking sides goes so being in the centre is as good as anywhere.
I have not real interest in economics so my answers to those questions could hardly be said to be thought out at all, it was more of I guess that is right. With serious thought my positions on any economic issue might change competely.
Me being in the centre on social policy would have to be wrong, it probably an average of various extene views.
As far as traditional values goes it is no surprise at all.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 12:12 AM
*bump*

If anyone who didn't take either test when this thread was up previously (incl. on the old BB) would like to have a go, I'd be interested in more scores:

Political Compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
OzPolitics Test http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/

Aaron Guthrie
04-07-2007, 12:47 AM
Political Outlook: ‘Centre Left’ -41.1%
Economic Policy: ‘Centre’ 10.5%.
Social Policy: ‘Centre Left’ -20.4%
Traditional values: ‘Far Left’ -84.2%

Can't be bothered with the parties. I thought I'd be be at least centre right for economic policy.

http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3b0a7b8c533dd2e4d16b1df7025098ee

Edit-After looking through others results I thought it might be worth noting that I got 15.1% for One Nation (far lower than everyone else).

Basil
04-07-2007, 01:02 AM
I did my thingo over a year ago. Here are the results. One couldn't hope to meet a more balanced creature:

Political Outlook: 0.8% 'Centre'
Economic Policy: 3.0 'Centre'
Social Policy: 4.9% 'Centre'
Traditional Values: 3.8% 'Centre'

If you wish for a visual confirming your suspicions of my centred excellence, click here (http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/index.php?page_id=206&id=ecbefda9305989a7023fd57892bcf3a0) and scroll down half way.

Carry on, you're all doing very well.

Aaron Guthrie
04-07-2007, 01:05 AM
Is there a political reason why left is red, and right is blue? All I can think of is communism's relation to red, I can't think of any reason for right being blue.

Zwischenzug
04-07-2007, 01:16 AM
Interesting quizzes, here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

Political outlook: -19.5%, ‘Centre Left’
Economic policy: -34.2%, ‘Centre Left’
Social policy: -36.1%, ‘Centre Left’
Traditional values: 1.9%, ‘Centre’

Okay, I'm off to see what all this political jargon actually means:D .

Basil
04-07-2007, 01:22 AM
Okay, I'm off to see what all this political jargon actually means:D .
It means that you're a clueless lefty flop like Aaron, Boris, Rincewind and Denis and many other lovely people! ;)

bergil
04-07-2007, 11:10 AM
Greens 69.5%
Australian Democrats 72.5%
Labor Party 70%
Family First 54.9%
Liberal Party 44.3%
National Party 39.2%
One Nation 48.5%

Political Outlook: -22.4%
Economic policy: -38.5%
Social policy: -24.9%
Traditional values: 2.4%

Basil
04-07-2007, 11:15 AM
Oh dear. Go on - stare at your chart. Tell you something? ;)

bergil
04-07-2007, 11:17 AM
Oh dear. Go on - stare at your chart. Tell you something? ;)Nope pretty much what I expected. ;)

Spiny Norman
04-07-2007, 11:31 AM
My my my, is it election time again? That rascal John Howard surely couldn't win it again ... I mean, its all so transparent ... all this voodoo economic, social misanthropic, radical terrorist, wedge politics.

<takes the test>

Oh deary, deary me ... I have become that which I feared:

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

Just 2 years ago it was this:

overall alignment 43.5% (right)
economic policy 46.6% (right)
social policy 40.8% (centre-right)
traditional values 51.3% (right)
I blame Gunner Duggan!

bergil
04-07-2007, 11:35 AM
I blame Gunner Duggan!And rightly so! :owned:

Basil
04-07-2007, 11:37 AM
I blame Gunner Duggan!
Query.
You blame me for talking sense and bringing balance to your sheltered existence (ie you're now centred), or blame my dribblings, pomposity and fatuous approach to everything for pushing you towards the left? :lol: :mrgreen:

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 11:58 AM
Political Compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
OzPolitics Test http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/

For the first I scored
Economic Left/Right: 5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26

On the second:
Greens 8.5%
Australian Democrats 22.9%
Labor Party 31.6%
Family First 69.7%
Liberal Party 85.7%
National Party 88.7%
One Nation 77.8%

Your broad political orientation score is 77.2%, which equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your economic policy score score is 86.5%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your social policy score is 95.8%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your traditional values score is 96.2%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Basil
04-07-2007, 12:02 PM
Your broad political orientation score is 77.2%, which equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your economic policy score score is 86.5%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your social policy score is 95.8%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position

Your traditional values score is 96.2%. This equates to a ‘Far Right’ position
:eek: I knew you were strong right, but they're BIG numbers!

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 12:12 PM
:eek: I knew you were strong right, but they're BIG numbers!
Sometimes I even surprise myself :eh: :hmm: Yet these numbers don't tell anyone which specifics I voted for.

Basil
04-07-2007, 12:17 PM
Sometimes I even surprise myself :eh: :hmm: Yet these numbers don't tell anyone which specifics I voted for.
No they don't. But they do confirm many things - one being that you won't require a bleeding heart transplant any time soon ;)

Spiny Norman
04-07-2007, 12:31 PM
You blame me for talking sense and bringing balance to your sheltered existence (ie you're now centred), or blame my dribblings, pomposity and fatuous approach to everything for pushing you towards the left? :lol: :mrgreen:
Indubitably the latter! ;) All is not lost though, I also scored:

Greens 25.3%
Australian Democrats 40.9%
Labor Party 57.2%
Family First 81%
Liberal Party 88.6%
National Party 83.5%
One Nation 73.2%

According to the second test I'm somewhere between right and centre right:
-- Your broad political orientation score is 35.7%, which equates to a ‘Centre Right’ position
-- Your economic policy score score is 43.8%. This equates to a ‘Right’ position
-- Your social policy score is 41.4%. This equates to a ‘Centre Right’ position
-- Your traditional values score is 68.9%. This equates to a ‘Right’ position

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 12:51 PM
No they don't. But they do confirm many things - one being that you won't require a bleeding heart transplant any time soon ;)
Heh ;) Not sure why One Nation was rated higher than Family First though. ON is quite leftist economically and even on some of the traditional values issues. But does this mean that the Coalition is a far right party? :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 02:11 PM
It's interesting that OzPolitics flags Jono as consistently right-wing but the Political Compass ranks him as neutral on the libertarian/authoritarian scale. Also that Frosty ranks as consistently fairly right-wing on OzPolitics but mildly left on Political Compass. To some degree this may represent the latter being skewed to an American left/right concept which is considerably more "right-wing" than ours but I also suspect both tests are a bit out. For instance my guess for Jono for the Political Compass was about (7,3).


But does this mean that the Coalition is a far right party?

I think what it means is that the Coalition is more consistently "right-wing" than either FF or ON both of which have leftist leanings (in different ways) on some economic issues. Australia doesn't really have a recognisable "far right" party of any significance.

Basil
04-07-2007, 03:04 PM
I don't know about Political Compass being gospel.

I got all my questions right! ;) and these are the results:

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

The OzPolitics is much better at reflecting an individual's orientation IMO. While I accept (with honour) my 'social' score, it is simply a fact that the 'economic' score on the Political Compass is incorrect.

Given that I answered the questions correctly!, the algorithms must be wrong :mrgreen: On a more serious note, Kevin's assessment of the definition and the US origins is quite likely a major key.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-07-2007, 03:15 PM
Greens 19.5% (isn't it a bit too much?)
Australian democrats 29.4%
Labor Party 43.1%
Family First 59.4% (who in the hell are they?)
Liberal Party 81.8%
National 81.3%
One Nation 69.1% (they must be joking)

political 48.7%
economical 90.5%
Social 68.8%
Traditional (whatever it is) 23%

I have no idea how they differentiate positions, even though some questions I found dubious and I am sure for some their interpretation of my answers would not be accurate.


Here are few questions I found poorly formulated:

1. There is too much nudity and explicit sexual material on television
What does it matter if I agree or disagree? IMHO, TV station can show whatever they want, and I can decide whether I want to watch it or not. If it have too much (or not enough :) ) "nudity and explicit sexual material" to my liking I will not watch it (and in some cases don't let my kids watch it).

I guess test designer would expect me to say "strongly disagree", but it would not be correct.


2. The small business sector needs bigger tax breaks and more start-up grants from government
I strongly disagreed, but simply because I don't think any business should get specific tax-breaks or start-up grants, not because of my preference to big business or dislike of small business.

3. A political party should refine its policy position on the basis of opinion polls to ensure it is responsive to what the public wants.
Isn't it up to the party? Why my views on that should matter? If I say yes or no, how does it define my political position?

4. A high rate of inflation is a more serious economic problem than a high rate of unemployment

They both might be problem is some circumstances. In other cases they are not. Option "irrelevant" would be helpful

5. The government should legislate for gay marriages or civil unions
I strongly disagreed simply because I do not think government should legislate marriage at all and leave it to a private contract. It's interesting that the more government legislate to support marriage the higher rate of divorce is.
Guess my answer would align me with homophobic political views, while it would be the same for heterosexual marriage as well.

6. Unions are the democratic voice of working people
Some are and some are not. How am I suppose to answer that question?

7. Unemployed people should work for the dole
I strongly disagree, but I expect it makes me a supporter of welfare state?

8. High schools should provide students with condom vending machines and syringe disposal points
Where is the option "up to school and parents"?

9. The government should actively support multiculturalism.
While I think that multiculturalism is a good thing, I don't believe government should spend money on it or meddle in any way. So , the answer is "strongly disagree", yet the poll designer would happily align me with One Nation or someone like that on that issue.


The test is not as bad as it could be, but some questions are loaded and do give enough options. Something like "irrelevant" or skip would be helpful

Igor_Goldenberg
04-07-2007, 03:25 PM
Economic Left/Right 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

Bottom right quarter, right libertarian.

I found questions even more dubious and loaded then oz politics, but 2-dimensional division is much more informative.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-07-2007, 03:28 PM
Try this one:
http://ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html
I found them easier to answer:)

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 03:30 PM
Given that I answered the questions correctly!, the algorithms must be wrong :mrgreen: On a more serious note, Kevin's assessment of the definition and the US origins is quite likely a major key.
The Aussie site gave the option of more nuanced answers, instead of yes or no. But even then, some of the questions were not the best.

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 04:09 PM
A lot of Igor's examples show the need for a "Don't Care" option on these questions. However I suppose a vote somewhere in the middle of the shading will reflect that to a degree (not sure if you can just leave questions blank).


2. The small business sector needs bigger tax breaks and more start-up grants from government
I strongly disagreed, but simply because I don't think any business should get specific tax-breaks or start-up grants, not because of my preference to big business or dislike of small business.

That is the answer they would be after from you in that situation.


3. A political party should refine its policy position on the basis of opinion polls to ensure it is responsive to what the public wants.
Isn't it up to the party? Why my views on that should matter? If I say yes or no, how does it define my political position?

It tests whether or not you are a populist, which is typically seen as a right-leaning position.


5. The government should legislate for gay marriages or civil unions
I strongly disagreed simply because I do not think government should legislate marriage at all and leave it to a private contract.

Probably this is really a "strongly agree" type response since you are agreeing that the government should make gay marriages legal - just disputing that it is any of the government's business to conduct them.


9. The government should actively support multiculturalism.
While I think that multiculturalism is a good thing, I don't believe government should spend money on it or meddle in any way. So , the answer is "strongly disagree", yet the poll designer would happily align me with One Nation or someone like that on that issue.

This is a good point because the question does not discriminate between strong symbolic support and strong financial support. It's possible a person supports the former but not the latter, in which case either an agree answer or a disagree answer are both incorrect.

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 04:25 PM
Try this one:
http://ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html
I found them easier to answer:)

I found one of them quite difficult to answer:


5) How much should the government regulate the labour market? Should the government be involved and if so, how much responsibility should remain with individuals?

The reason I found that one difficult to answer is that my answer to it depends on the welfare system in place at the time. If there is a more or less unconditional and strong safety net then my answer is:

"Abolish minimum wage and all labour market regulations"

but if there is only the present welfare system then my answer is:

"Maintain current labour market regulations, with regular standard increases in the minimum wage"

which makes quite a deal of difference in the scores (or should!).

Something I have noticed with that test is that if you resubmit the same answers you may get different results! For instance I initially scored (6,8) then went back to test what effect changes in my answers would have on my score - since then I keep getting (5,5) to (6,5) more or less whatever I put in.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-07-2007, 04:46 PM
5. The government should legislate for gay marriages or civil unions
I strongly disagreed simply because I do not think government should legislate marriage at all and leave it to a private contract.

Probably this is really a "strongly agree" type response since you are agreeing that the government should make gay marriages legal - just disputing that it is any of the government's business to conduct them.

No. While I believe that homosexuals should be free to live together, I also believe that I should be free to disapprove of it and be free to publicly express it. Personally to me it is not a marriage, but at the same time it's none of my business.
I also do not believe that current law prevent homosexuals from living together. They are even in a privileged position because they can have their own contract without government imposing on them how they should live together.





9. The government should actively support multiculturalism.
While I think that multiculturalism is a good thing, I don't believe government should spend money on it or meddle in any way. So , the answer is "strongly disagree", yet the poll designer would happily align me with One Nation or someone like that on that issue.

This is a good point because the question does not discriminate between strong symbolic support and strong financial support. It's possible a person supports the former but not the latter, in which case either an agree answer or a disagree answer are both incorrect.

There is a huge difference between financial support with your own money or someone else money

DanielBell
04-07-2007, 05:43 PM
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=a4f2bc75457edc0e1ef69f859caa8fa1

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 06:16 PM
2. The small business sector needs bigger tax breaks and more start-up grants from government
I strongly disagreed, but simply because I don't think any business should get specific tax-breaks or start-up grants, not because of my preference to big business or dislike of small business.

I too strongly disagreed, because I also think that government should stay out of this. But this might align me with the Left with their hatred of business.


3. A political party should refine its policy position on the basis of opinion polls to ensure it is responsive to what the public wants.
Isn't it up to the party? Why my views on that should matter? If I say yes or no, how does it define my political position?

Should disagree for that reason. A party should lead, and if people don't like it, they vote them out.


4. A high rate of inflation is a more serious economic problem than a high rate of unemployment

They both might be problem is some circumstances. In other cases they are not. Option "irrelevant" would be helpful

This seems to presuppose the "Phillips Curve", asserting that we can trade inflation for unemployment. But Carter's reign disproved that with the unfortunate new phenomenon of "stagflation", i.e. high unemployment and high inflation.


8. High schools should provide students with condom vending machines and syringe disposal points
Where is the option "up to school and parents"?

Or that the government should not be involved in schooling?


9. The government should actively support multiculturalism.
While I think that multiculturalism is a good thing, I don't believe government should spend money on it or meddle in any way. So , the answer is "strongly disagree", yet the poll designer would happily align me with One Nation or someone like that on that issue.

Me too, yet I have Jewish blood, am married to a non-Aussie, have European and Kiwi parents ... but the government should stay out of it.


The test is not as bad as it could be, but some questions are loaded and do give enough options. Something like "irrelevant" or skip would be helpful

True. Still better than straight yes and no.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 06:27 PM
It tests whether or not you are a populist, which is typically seen as a right-leaning position.

Why is this? There is no necessary connection between populism and free market support, also usually seen as right-leaning.


The reason I found that one difficult to answer is that my answer to it depends on the welfare system in place at the time. If there is a more or less unconditional and strong safety net then my answer is:

"Abolish minimum wage and all labour market regulations"

But if there is unconditional welfare, wouldn't that be an incentive not to work?


but if there is only the present welfare system then my answer is:

"Maintain current labour market regulations, with regular standard increases in the minimum wage"

Why is this? Because of the bureaucratic hurdles to obtain a pittance of welfare mean that a worker is more likely to stay in a job where he is exploited?

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 07:18 PM
Why is this? There is no necessary connection between populism and free market support, also usually seen as right-leaning.

Agreed. Populism is mainly seen as right-wing because it is usually expressed on non-economic issues like law and order, immigration and "moral issues".

Often a position is seen as populist if it is poorly thought-out politics that is justified as being what the people want - although it isn't always the case that they actually do.


But if there is unconditional welfare, wouldn't that be an incentive not to work?

I did only say "more or less" unconditional. Perhaps I should have said "with minimal conditions". As discussed on some other threads I don't believe people should be allowed to refuse reasonable work offers and continue to receive the dole, and I also believe there should be registration requirements. But the amount of hoop-jumping in the present system, much of it pointless, is ridiculous.


Why is this? Because of the bureaucratic hurdles to obtain a pittance of welfare mean that a worker is more likely to stay in a job where he is exploited?

Basically, yes.

Capablanca-Fan
04-07-2007, 10:02 PM
Try this one:
http://ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html
I found them easier to answer:)

"Your economic freedom index is 10, and your social freedom index is 3.5." Apparently my social freedom index is between Libs and Nats, but none of the parties is very high on the economic freedom index.

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2007, 10:21 PM
Something I have noticed with that test is that if you resubmit the same answers you may get different results! For instance I initially scored (6,8) then went back to test what effect changes in my answers would have on my score - since then I keep getting (5,5) to (6,5) more or less whatever I put in.

I just had another go and putting in the same answers got (6,8) again the first time (not 8,6 as previously reported), but then the same answers got (5,5) repeatedly.

As far as I can tell, if you hit "back" and then alter some answers, it treats all the answers you haven't altered as being in the middle. "Altering" in this context includes changing something to something else then back again.

(6,8) is an amusing result on that graph because there is a kind of line running from the Greens to the Dems to the ALP to the Libs, along which economic freedom increases but social freedom decreases, and my position places me well away from any but geometrically closer to the Dems or ALP than the others. This actually matches my own view of how the left-right spectrum in Australia mainly operates, with exceptions for certain kinds of small "right-wing" parties that are likely to be universally illiberal.

Axiom
04-07-2007, 10:57 PM
the left-right spectrum is blurred to the point of meaninglessness

Desmond
12-07-2007, 12:00 PM
Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

Political Outlook -24.4% centre-left
Economic Policy 11.2% Centre
Social Policy 9.1% Centre
Traditional Values -57.9% Left

Labor 75.7%
Democrats 70.2%
Greens 64.1%
Liberal 62.4%
Family First 56.3%
National 47.1%
One Notion 46.9%

Garvinator
12-07-2007, 01:24 PM
One Nation 56.8%
Family First 38.6%
National Party 46.2%
Liberal Party 54.5%
Labor Party 68.5%
Australian Democrats 71.8%
The Greens 62.6%

Family First last by a long way :clap:
I just re-did the test to see what I would get now.

Greens 48.5
Aus Dems 53
Labor 46.2
Family First 46.1
Liberal 58.1
Nats 54.9
One Nation 62.4

Family First in the cellar again :clap: :clap: Results are a little surprising that I did not poll higher for the Greens considering I rate environmental issues above a lot of other things. But only one question was really about the environment.

Political outlook- 11.2 centre to centre right
economic outlook- 11.8 as above
social policy- 21.8 centre right
traditional values- 4.8 centre

pax
12-07-2007, 01:40 PM
I just re-did the test to see what I would get now.


How on earth did you go from a Democrat voter to a One Nation voter so fast.. I've heard of changes of mind, but that's insane!

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2007, 01:44 PM
How on earth did you go from a Democrat voter to a One Nation voter so fast.. I've heard of changes of mind, but that's insane!

Economically, both have some leftist policies.

pax
12-07-2007, 02:10 PM
Economically, both have some leftist policies.

Maybe, but the chances of a Democrat voter suddenly deciding to vote One Nation are approximately, well, zero.

People generally vote for One Nation or not on the basis of social, not economic policy.

Basil
12-07-2007, 02:28 PM
I seem to have 'demand fever' this week ...

I demand that someone plots us on a graph (x+y axes). Similar to the questionnaire results.

If my demands are not met, I will commence posting something annoying ... not sure what.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2007, 02:28 PM
Maybe, but the chances of a Democrat voter suddenly deciding to vote One Nation are approximately, well, zero.

People generally vote for One Nation or not on the basis of social, not economic policy.
Like Greens?

pax
12-07-2007, 02:32 PM
Like Greens?

Indeed, many people will vote for the Greens based on environmental policy alone and ignore other aspects of their platform.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2007, 02:33 PM
Indeed, many people will vote for the Greens based on environmental policy alone and ignore other aspects of their platform.

I think their environmental policy is as sound as their other policies.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2007, 03:32 PM
The Greens are the likely recipients of former Democrat votes as the latter party disappears from politics.

I have done some analysis on this from time to time and the Greens do not pick up ex-Democrat votes as effectively as might be thought, at least not anymore.

In my experience of the Democrats (a party I never joined but used to follow pretty closely - eg I scrutineered for the late Robert Bell when he won the final Tassie senate seat by about 3200 votes in 1990 after being written off by various incompetent journalists) their support base used to come in three types:

(i) Middle-class, small-l liberal centrists who generally sit between the two major parties.
(ii) Old-fashioned progressive environmentalists who were similar to Greens in their political view but differed in style - more interested in debate, detail and procedure than publicity, activism and stunts.
(iii) Bright, tertiary-educated JJJ/ABC listening youngish euro-leftist suburbanites

Group (ii) were the first to leave and some of them eventually switched to the Greens while quite a lot of them became eco-contrarians who are now actively anti-Green.

Group (iii) have generally switched to Labor.

Group (i) are the last to leave the sinking ship and are going all over the place

A good example of the relative failure of the Greens to capitalise on the Democrat implosion was in the Tassie senate race in 2004, when despite the Democrat vote crashing from 4.6% to 0.9%, the Green vote also went backwards!

As a national average I believe the Greens are picking up not more than half of the departing Democrats vote.

Another factor is that fighting between the two parties in the early 90s has left many Democrats very bitter about the Greens and reluctant to ever vote for them. During some of the fights that used to go on one senior Democrat faction-hack told me "The Greens are our enemies, we must destroy them".

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2007, 03:47 PM
Thanx KB; that's useful info.

Basil
12-07-2007, 03:55 PM
... after being written off by various incompetent journalists ...
Another group with a propensity for boobery and opinions on many things without any a/c/t/u/a/l experience of a/n/y/t/h/i/n/g.

Of course, if they could remain within their remit of balanced reporting, then I would assess their ability solely on that. However, many have opened the door on their opinions, I'm happy to slam it in their face ;)

OK, everybody carry on.

eclectic
12-07-2007, 04:15 PM
I hereby remit one Gunner Duggan 20 of his quasi eponymous monetary units for the use of the bolded word though as a noun in his example ;)

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2007, 04:25 PM
Another group with a propensity for boobery and opinions on many things without any a/c/t/u/a/l experience of a/n/y/t/h/i/n/g.
It's no accident that leftist ideas proliferate in the newsroom and academia, where ideas don't actually have to work to survive.

MichaelBaron
12-07-2007, 04:32 PM
It is hard to see any forces other than Labour and Liblrals influencing Auzzie politics seriously in a forseeble future :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2007, 05:09 PM
In this case I was referring to incompetence in calling elections, not to political bias. In multi-member elections (such as the Senate) journalists very often make basic errors in working out who is likely to win even when they have the primary vote figures in front of them. This sort of stuff actually is pretty tricky and they tend to make basic errors like overlooking the impact of leakage. In the Bell case I had done calculations on election night showing Bell as 85% likely to win but papers the next day said he appeared to have lost.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2007, 06:52 PM
In this case I was referring to incompetence in calling elections, not to political bias.

I've heard that before my time in QLD, journalists often predicted a Joh loss from polls. Exit polls in the US last Presidential election supposedly had the flip-flopper winning.


In multi-member elections (such as the Senate) journalists very often make basic errors in working out who is likely to win even when they have the primary vote figures in front of them. This sort of stuff actually is pretty tricky and they tend to make basic errors like overlooking the impact of leakage. In the Bell case I had done calculations on election night showing Bell as 85% likely to win but papers the next day said he appeared to have lost.

How do you calculate the proportion of voters who ignore the how-to-vote cards?

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2007, 07:44 PM
I've heard that before my time in QLD, journalists often predicted a Joh loss from polls.

Joh had a massive advantage from malapportionment and hence would often win when polling miserably.


Exit polls in the US last Presidential election supposedly had the flip-flopper winning.

They did and there is still considerable debate about why they got it wrong. There are some who argue that the exit poll result was actually within the true margin of error, some who argue that there were errors in sampling methods, and some who argue that the exit poll was correct but the election counts (eg those using electronic voting) were wrong. I doubt we'll ever know.


How do you calculate the proportion of voters who ignore the how-to-vote cards?

Past experience is the best guide in this respect. It's a better guide than trying to second-guess it based on policy attitudes because voters' perceptions don't always align with those.

Desmond
12-07-2007, 08:40 PM
(iii) Bright, tertiary-educated JJJ/ABC listening youngish euro-leftist suburbanitesPresent! and this would probably be sitting under my name in place of "Rearranged Pond Scum" right now if it were a bit shorter.

eclectic
12-07-2007, 08:55 PM
Present! and this would probably be sitting under my name in place of "Rearranged Pond Scum" right now if it were a bit shorter.

put it in your signature perhaps ... ;)

pax
12-07-2007, 09:33 PM
A good example of the relative failure of the Greens to capitalise on the Democrat implosion was in the Tassie senate race in 2004, when despite the Democrat vote crashing from 4.6% to 0.9%, the Green vote also went backwards!

I don't think that particular election result can be regarded as a national indication - the logging issue played rather strongly anti-Green (and anti-Labor) in the lead-up to the election.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2007, 11:21 PM
I don't think that particular election result can be regarded as a national indication - the logging issue played rather strongly anti-Green (and anti-Labor) in the lead-up to the election.

It was certainly anti-Labor but the only extent to which it was anti-Green was that Labor's forests policy was so green that Labor probably took some votes off the Greens, while losing a few times that many to the Liberals. Ritual forest conflict has been one of the major issues in Tasmanian politics for 20 years and if forest issues were going to cost Greens in Tasmania that many votes it would have happened a long time before now.

Yes, Tasmania was an extreme example, but nationally in the House of Reps there was a 4.2% swing against the Dems and only 2.2% to the Greens. In the Senate the Dems crashed nationally from 7.7% to 2.1% and the Greens only managed to pick up 2.8%.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2007, 10:15 AM
http://ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html
Economical freedom - 9,5
Social freedom 7,5
Bottom right quadrant

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 03:40 PM
From Economists on the Loose (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/07/18/economists_on_the_loose), 18 July 2007


First, let's establish a working definition of free markets; it's really simple. Free markets are simply millions upon millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchange pursuing what they see in their best interests. People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What's more, they believe they've been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider good reasons for doing so, but every tyrant that has ever existed has had what he believed were good reasons for restricting the liberty of others.

Tyrants are against the free market because it implies voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people acting voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they ought to do. Therefore, they want to replace the market with economic planning, or as Professor Blinder calls it -- industrial policy.

Economic planning is nothing more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite. For example, I might plan to purchase a car, a shirt or apples from a foreign producer because I see it in my best interest. The powerful elite might supersede my plan, through import tariffs and quotas, because they think I should make the purchases from a domestic producer.

Basil
18-07-2007, 05:34 PM
Not all the these people are tyrants. Some are worse. Tyrants do what they do by physical coercion or threat of coercion.

Worse, and harder to reason with are conglomerates of unworldly angry ants utterly convinced of the social righteousness of their cause. Their resolute belief in fighting the good fight on behalf of various causes (which is admirable) has come unstuck with huge collateral damage on each and every occasion it has been attempted in the last 100 years.

Let's have a quick look at Hawke/ Keating - 10 years worth
-- Did they attend to Global Warming (after it was signaled 35 years ago)? {Pax} :wall:
-- Did the infamous "No Child Will Live In Poverty" thing happen? :wall:
-- Did the country create $200 billion national debt? :wall:
-- Did interest rates hit 17% :wall:
-- Did unemployment rise considerably :wall:

This is not a one-off. Not a quirk. Students of western political history will show that this disaster has occurred each time a left wing government is given long enough to destroy anything. It's not me. It's not my bias. It's not a personal assessment. What I am telling you is a factual phenomenon.

I understand the conviction with which left-wingers speak.
I understand the disdain with which they rightfully and wrongfully hold conservative policies.
I empathise with much of what they seek to address.

What completely buggers me is that time after time, when they get a chance to enact their policies, the result is an unmitigated cock-up, the likes of which have never been leveled at right-ish governments.

By all means disagree with conservative policies. But FFS, stop foisting traditional left-ish ideas that don't, never have and never will f***ing work.

--------

OK, better now. I understand I've changed nothing. Like you won't change my mind. I'm on the record. I'm happy now. You will have your Labor government. And we all sit in the sh*t together ;) Except for the rich :wall:

Everyone carry on!

Axiom
18-07-2007, 05:38 PM
Tyranny is in fact the norm in human history,be it of a so called leftist nature or a so called rightest nature.
The end result is the same ,big government and centralised control.
The global elites have controlled the masses by way of tyranny through the ages.
To argue 'left' or 'right' in debates is erroneous and futile. The elite love to see us argue over which flavour of tyranny we advocate(albeit unknowingly)
The true political struggle has always been that between the most powerful and the least powerful.Not between the left and right.

"The world is governed by personalities very different to what people that cannot see further than their eyes, believe"

Benjamin Disraeli, Statesman


"It doesn't matter who the people voted for; they always vote for us".

Illuminati Statement

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [Marxism / fascism, socialism, capitalism, etc.] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other."

Myron Fagan

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable"

Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 05:51 PM
This is not a one-off. Students of political history will show that this disaster has occurred each time a left wing government is given long enough to destroy anything.

Do you count Fraser's as a "left wing government"? The economy at the end of his tenure didn't have quite as much unemployment as the worst of Hawke/Keating, but was a basket-case all the same.

Furthermore the current bunch are not so much brilliant at managing the economy as they are brilliant at making it look like they are. Except that people may be starting to see through it. In the last few weeks, of the many theories to explain why the Coalition remains way behind in the polls, the one that is gaining the most ground is the view that the present rosy figures conceal a housing affordability crisis which is making people switch off in droves.

Axiom
18-07-2007, 06:35 PM
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

yep, me and the dalai lama !

Basil
18-07-2007, 07:51 PM
Do you count Fraser's as a "left wing government"?
No.


The economy at the end of his tenure didn't have quite as much unemployment as the worst of Hawke/Keating, but was a basket-case all the same.
Kev, you know better than that. There is no comparison between the those two economies. Not all elements within any tenures can be ideally contained. The relationship between real wages and inflation and interest rates and the balance sheet is hard to manage as one impacts the other. I would not isolate any of these issues at the feet of any government, or singularly judge it, as it is inappropriate in the extreme. There's the matter of prevailing global conditions at any given time as well. There's really too much to discuss, but I'm certain you understand all this.

I am (and was speaking as a whole). It was a disaster. The likes of which is never (to my reasonable knowledge of these things) perpetrated by conservative policies.


Furthermore the current bunch are not so much brilliant at managing the economy as they are brilliant at making it look like they are.
I disagree. You're welcome to your opinion - it's certainly a popular one with the common man ATM.


Except that people may be starting to see through it. In the last few weeks, of the many theories to explain why the Coalition remains way behind in the polls, the one that is gaining the most ground is the view that the present rosy figures conceal a housing affordability crisis which is making people switch off in droves.
Of that I have no doubt. The housing market is certainly over-cooked, as happens every 30 years or so. It is the by-product of all that precedes and very hard to stop. The housing market tends to have a cycle of its own, but has certainly been flamed by a very strong economy. I believe it won't reach parity once again until approx 2020. There is nought to be done about it and there was very little that could have prevented it.

Regardless; that people want to use it (among other things) to vote out a government will do so - is their birth right. It remains that IMO they are clueless, knee-jerk, lost and confused souls who know not what they do, and certainly couldn't justify it if I asked them.

Axiom
18-07-2007, 08:07 PM
No.


Regardless; that people want to use it (among other things) to vote out a government will do so - is their birth right. It remains that IMO they are clueless, knee-jerk, lost and confused souls who know not what they do, and certainly couldn't justify it if I asked them.
because it doesnt make any goddam material difference!

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 08:15 PM
-- Did the country create $200 billion national debt? :wall:Foreign investment, woot!

-- Did interest rates hit 17% :wall:Which kept inflation low, woot!

-- Did unemployment rise considerably :wall:Which kept inflation low, woot!

On that last point, here is an interesting article which may give you some faith in the Australian electorate, Why John Howard will win next year's federal election (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5032), it argues that Australia only votes out governments when the economy experiences stagflation.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 08:48 PM
There is no comparison between the those two economies. Not all elements within any tenures can be ideally contained. The relationship between real wages and inflation and interest rates and the balance sheet is hard to manage as one impacts the other.

Excuses, excuses. The left have their excuses too. Under Fraser unemployment was high and inflation was high and top tax rates were high.


I would not isolate any of these issues at the feet of any government, or singularly judge it, as it is inappropriate in the extreme. There's the matter of prevailing global conditions at any given time as well. There's really too much to discuss, but I'm certain you understand all this.

Sure, and the left use exactly the same claims to defend their governments.


On that last point, here is an interesting article which may give you some faith in the Australian electorate, Why John Howard will win next year's federal election, it argues that Australia only votes out governments when the economy experiences stagflation.

I would be interested to know if the author of that article (published October 2006) still holds that view. Anyone can spot patterns in past results but correlation is not causation and only when these things have been proposed, tested and verified should they be relied upon. Until then they are only speculation. An obvious flaw in McConvill's argument is this:

Between 1949 and 1972 was a period of uninterrupted government at a federal level. Unemployment was historically low, averaging about 2 per cent. Inflationary pressures were also non-existent.

That fails to explain why Menzies went perilously close to losing in 1961.

As for the speculative correlation-spotting game, in the opposite direction here's (http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/why-howard-is-rooted-in-one-simple-graph) one (contains slightly coarse language) which argues that housing affordability correlates well with opinion poll support for the government.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 09:13 PM
Anyone can spot patterns in past results but correlation is not causation and only when these things have been proposed, tested and verified should they be relied upon. Until then they are only speculation.I don't take the conclusion of the article too seriously. My first thought when I saw the article was that we are talking about a very low number of events, so there are going to be a lot of similar arguments you can make. I have also found most arguments about the motivations of the electorate to suffer similarly, but this of course suffers even more so. I take his as just a hopeful and relevant association. Relevant because stagflation seems to be the least arguable indication of bad economic management.

Basil
18-07-2007, 09:36 PM
Foreign investment, woot!
Which kept inflation low, woot!
Which kept inflation low, woot!

I'm not really sure of my entry point when faced with this. Is this meant to be credible commentary? :wall:

My suspicions about some quarters of the electorate have just been ratified.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not really sure of my entry point when faced with this. Is this meant to be credible commentary? :wall:

My suspicions about some quarters of the electorate have just been ratified.Foreign debt is not a bad thing in and of itself (ask Peter Costello if you don't believe me).

Keeping inflation low is seen by some economists as the main thing to do as regards the management of the economy. Relatively high interest rates and high unemployment both achieve this.

So Gunner, would you like to retract your very intelligent and oh so relevant (I am being sarcastic here if it isn't clear) ad hom?

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 09:47 PM
Another thing the article doesn't take into account is that despite inflation being low, a less risky Liberal campaign (or even the same one better managed) would have beaten Keating the first time round.

Basil
18-07-2007, 09:51 PM
Oh gawd :rolleyes:

You know how you feel when a Duggan sidles up to you and tells you he thinks he understands chess? He's excited. He has some knowledge. He knows how the pieces move and he gets indignant when you tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about?

Bingo!

Give me a couple to make a coffee, have a sausage and I'll respond to what I was really hoping was not a serious position, and certainly not one to be defended.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 09:56 PM
Give me a couple to make a coffee, have a sausage and I'll respond to what I was really hoping was not a serious position, and certainly not one to be defended.My position is that your list is not a knockdown of that government's economic management.

Basil
18-07-2007, 10:29 PM
I have no idea how to head this post. I wish it were a lesson, but I doubt it would be taken seriously. I wish it were humorous, but alas it ain't. All I can say is here are some clarifications regarding the economics being discussed, which I hope will disabuse you and others of the claptrap being peddled.

Foreign Debt and Government Debt
Foreign debt (as imported by business and consumers)
can be a good thing. It can illustrate that investment is being made in the country's economic superstructure. If that resulting superstructure can service that debt (commercially) then there's no problem. With the debt serviced, the resultant growth creates expanding concentric circles of all (most) things good.

Government Debt
The crap that Labor saddled the nation with. $90 billion bucks worth. Borne from a mania (they teach it in fg school) of developing infrastructure; viz roads (the latest from the Swann/ Rudd school of stupidity is Broadband). This a whole separate conversation, and anyone who thinks they have a handle on it and wishes to challenge me is welcome to a pummell ... discussion on its merits. All I ask in advance is that no-one waste my time ;)

I digress. What Costello is referring to is Foreign Debt. It can be justifiable and good depending on its motives and origins. What I was referring to was Government debt. This bad. Always. This is what I mean when I say Labor will murder your kiddies in their beds while 'mum and dad average' lie back in their bed with chloroform over their noses. Simply, voters don't get it. Labor doesn't get it. Lefties don't get it. I should care.

Inflation
Inflation capping is very very very important. However, in your post, you used inflation reduction as a defence or justification to 17% interest rates. I can either think that you have no comprehension of the devastation that 17% was. I know you weren't around to experience it personally (which is not a crime) but I do question whether you have any concept of what that means. I'd rather not explain here (I'll burst a blood vessel), but suffice to say the current housing crisis pales by significance.

Secondly, in periods of economic recession {yes, the one we had to have when the rest of the world wasn't having one} (everyone's stuffed, there aren't any jobs, no-one's buying anything) it's no surprise that inflation slowed. As Cleese would say "That parrot is dead, I tell you".

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 10:36 PM
Government Debt
The crap that Labor saddled the nation with. $90 billion bucks worth.Right, so this is the clarification (110 billion was in there that ought not have) that you could have made to begin with, instead of the insult (and continuing insult you make by calling this a lesson).
Inflation
Inflation capping is very very very important. However, in your post, you used inflation reduction as a defence or justification to 17% interest rates. I can either think that you have no comprehension of the devastation that 17% was. I know you weren't around to experience it personally (which is not a crime) but I do question whether you have any concept of what that means. I'd rather not explain here (I'll burst a blood vessel), but suffice to say the current housing crisis pales by significance.I thought we were talking about economic credentials. Where is the economic argument?
Secondly, in periods of economic recession {yes, the one we had to have when the rest of the world wasn't having one} (everyone's stuffed, there aren't any jobs, no-one's buying anything) it's no surprise that inflation slowed. As Cleese would say "That parrot is dead, I tell you".Well no, you can have high unemployment and high inflation, and that is really really bad.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2007, 10:43 PM
Do you count Fraser's as a "left wing government"?

Yeah. He didn't undo nearly enough of Whitlam's disastrous policies. One Whitlam was no longer Labor leader, it was safe to vote out that pompous ass.

In NZ, there was the ostensibly conservative Muldoon government, but that was basically socialist, with price and wage freeze, farm subsdidies, fixed exchange rate, tariffs ...


The economy at the end of his tenure didn't have quite as much unemployment as the worst of Hawke/Keating, but was a basket-case all the same.

Hawke/Keating did some good things, e.g. dividend imputation to avoid double taxation of dividends.


Furthermore the current bunch are not so much brilliant at managing the economy as they are brilliant at making it look like they are.

I am by no means an unconditional supporter of the Coalition, but the interest rates and unemployment are very low. I'm also yet to be convinced that Federal Labor has the talent to govern properly.


Except that people may be starting to see through it. In the last few weeks, of the many theories to explain why the Coalition remains way behind in the polls,

Oh, lately Rudd's brother was turfed out of Labor for donating to the enemy, but that seems to have been the Unions warning Rudd that they expect more than just a few crumbs off the Labor table.


the one that is gaining the most ground is the view that the present rosy figures conceal a housing affordability crisis which is making people switch off in droves.

Why is the housing affordability the fault of the Coalition, not greedy State governments already rolling in GST money but keeping the confiscatory stamp duty for houses, and fining employers for employing people with the absurd payroll tax? And it stands to reason, if State governments are not releasing land, the increasing population will automatically create increasing demand, driving prices up.

I think the main reason for the poor showing in the polls is the pathetic "time for a change" mentality. But remember, last time Australia thought that, they got Whitlam! And take note, Whitlam has almost divine status among many prominent Laborites.

Basil
18-07-2007, 10:57 PM
Right, so this is the clarification (110 billion was in there that ought not have) that you could have made to begin with, instead of the insult (and continuing insult you make by calling this a lesson).$90 billion it is. I didn't realise that I had made a typo. I can't explain why I typed 200. I recall I was at work and busy. I recall that I spotted my original typo when I actually wrote 1 billion :wall:

EDIT:The only explanation I can conjur is that I often round the 90 to 100. That explains the original '1' typo. Perhaps then in haste and frustration I typed 200 instead. I really don't know and can't remember.

But the typo is not the point. The point is that you have clearly confused Government Debt with Foreign debt. Then you have erroneously used the wrong one in defence of the the indefensible.


I thought we were talking about economic credentials. Where is the economic argument?
Aaron, with respect you are just wasting my time. Here is the dialogue:


Did interest rates hit 17% :wall:
Which kept inflation low, woot!
{insert explanation of why using inflation as justification is banal}
I thought we were talking about economic credentials. Where is the economic argument?

I wasn't talking about economic credentials and nor were you. The dialogue has been about your hopeless defence of Keating's economic outcomes.


Well no, you can have high unemployment and high inflation, and that is really really bad.
What??? You are saying that Keating's recession wasn't bad because it could have been worse?

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 11:10 PM
But the typo is not the point. The point is that you have clearly confused Government Debt with Foreign debt. Then you have erroneously used the wrong one in defence of the the indefensible.Get stuffed. You only clarified the type of debt you meant latter on. I am well aware of the reasons why some debt is good and other bad.
I wasn't talking about economic credentials and nor were you.I was only talking about economic credentials. I thought this was what you were talking about too. If you were not, that is my mistake. I dare say that I am not mistaken in what I was talking about, however.
The dialogue has been about your hopeless defence of Keating's economic outcomes.I was criticizing your list as establishing what I thought you meant it to establish (bad eco management).
What??? You are saying that Keating's recession wasn't bad because it could have been worse?I am saying that there is a good economic benefit to the factors of interest rates and unemployment. I do not know if we could have had low inflation and low interests rates (or unemployment).

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 11:13 PM
Also, this terminology between foreign debt and government debt is new to me. As I use foreign debt, and as I understand it is used by economists, it includes government debt.

Basil
18-07-2007, 11:23 PM
You only clarified the type of debt you meant latter on.
I'll accept that. I believed at the time my context was clear enough. I'll accept that it may not have been.


I was criticizing your list as establishing what I thought you meant it to establish (bad eco management).I am saying that there is a good economic benefit to the factors of interest rates and unemployment.
No. It was a royal cock-up. Keating has a good economist's brain but allowed himself to be in love with being Bankstown boy first and economics second. A bit like trying to make a bad Owen's structure work ;)

Had he been prepared to stop staring at model planes and being in love with his mis-placed ideology, he would have done OK IMO.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 11:28 PM
No. It was a royal cock-up. Keating has a good economist's brain who allowed himself to be in love with being Bankstown boy first and economics second. A bit like trying to make a bad Owen's structure work ;)

Had he been prepared to stop staring at model planes and being in love with his mis-placed ideology, he would have done OK IMO.You know all I wanted was some argument that we could have had the low inflation along with low unemployment and/or low interest rates. I thought this would help establish what in bad eco management resides (you will notice Kevin proposed the right could be attacked for their eco management).

But all goes well, continue the ad hom against me or the lefties or a particular lefty. Carry on, Gunner.

Axiom
18-07-2007, 11:32 PM
thats it , keep arguing one party ve another, keep arguing left v right :lol: :lol:

Basil
18-07-2007, 11:35 PM
You know all I wanted was some argument that we could have had the low inflation along with low unemployment and/or low interest rates.
I didn't see you propose that. Certainly nothing that caught my interest.


... you will notice Kevin proposed the right could be attacked for their eco management).
Most often I have ample space for Kevin's informed and balanced commentary. Today is not one of those days. A couple of posts from him on the subject of relative economic outcomes was enough to see me off ;)


But all goes well, continue the ad hom against me or the lefties or a particular lefty. Carry on, Gunner.
Not against you personally. Not at all. Why would you say that when I argue with all lefties most of the time!?

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2007, 11:39 PM
Yeah. He didn't undo nearly enough of Whitlam's disastrous policies. One Whitlam was no longer Labor leader, it was safe to vote out that pompous ass.

I was asking Gunner. I would have taken your response for granted had I considered how you might respond. (Of course, you are still welcome to!)


Oh, lately Rudd's brother was turfed out of Labor for donating to the enemy, but that seems to have been the Unions warning Rudd that they expect more than just a few crumbs off the Labor table.

I doubt he'll be intimidated. Many pollies have at least one dodgy rellie.


Why is the housing affordability the fault of the Coalition, not greedy State governments already rolling in GST money but keeping the confiscatory stamp duty for houses, and fining employers for employing people with the absurd payroll tax? And it stands to reason, if State governments are not releasing land, the increasing population will automatically create increasing demand, driving prices up.

GST money going to the States. Ah yes, who gave us that little scheme? :lol:

What is being argued is that no matter whose problem housing is, it is a serious problem. That means that when the government goes off banging on about how wonderful the economy is, they come across as mean and tricky. People want issues affecting them to be acknowledged by their government, whether those issues are actually the government's fault or not - and this hasn't really been prominently happening.


I think the main reason for the poor showing in the polls is the pathetic "time for a change" mentality. But remember, last time Australia thought that, they got Whitlam! And take note, Whitlam has almost divine status among many prominent Laborites.

True but I think that's a social ritual of respecting an elder in whom a great deal of emotionally significant (for loyalists) political history is invested rather than them actually being "Whitlamites". Whatever a few frustrated unionists might wish otherwise, there's not much radicalism in this bunch, apart from maybe Garrett.

Aaron Guthrie
18-07-2007, 11:44 PM
I didn't see you propose that. Certainly nothing that caught my interest.It would have convincingly debunked my claim about inflation. Indeed it seems to me the only thing which would have save an argument which accepted high inflation.
Not against you personally. Not at all. Why would you say that when I argue with all lefties most of the time!?Two points. First as regards me I think I have already made my point about that so I will not repeat it. My other point is about ad hom in general. It is always very unimpressive to me. Why talk about Keating like you did in post 98, when you could have just provided some economic mistake he made?

Basil
18-07-2007, 11:50 PM
First as regards me I think I have already made my point about that so I will not repeat it.
I don't understand. My only enduring hope is that you don't feel that I disrespect you. I respect you on many fronts. The rest is all by the by.


My other point is about ad hom in general. It is always very unimpressive to me. Why talk about Keating like you did in post 98, when you could have just provided some economic mistake he made?
Yes, most unimpressive. It is one of my failings. But I do enjoy it so. A bit of colour methinks.

I have a better ad improving record when referring to people that I know or with whom I am engaging. Still some work to do there.

Kevin Bonham
19-07-2007, 12:29 AM
Most often I have ample space for Kevin's informed and balanced commentary. Today is not one of those days.

I don't think I need to add anything here! :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 01:01 AM
GST money going to the States. Ah yes, who gave us that little scheme? :lol:
Hmm, yeah. :wall: And the Laborites whinged, but are happy to take advantage of the windfall.


What is being argued is that no matter whose problem housing is, it is a serious problem. That means that when the government goes off banging on about how wonderful the economy is, they come across as mean and tricky. People want issues affecting them to be acknowledged by their government, whether those issues are actually the government's fault or not — and this hasn't really been prominently happening.
Seriously though, what should the Coalition do about housing affordability, if anything? I know that some of my younger colleagues are having a much harder time affording a house than I did 10 years ago, and it's "not fair". But would government intervention make the problem worse?

pax
19-07-2007, 09:58 AM
Seriously though, what should the Coalition do about housing affordability, if anything? I know that some of my younger colleagues are having a much harder time affording a house than I did 10 years ago, and it's "not fair". But would government intervention make the problem worse?

How about they stop intervening on the side of investors with massive tax breaks?

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 12:15 PM
How about they stop intervening on the side of investors with massive tax breaks?
What tax breaks? You mean a deduction if an investor loses money because rent doesn't cover interest and other costs? In any case, rents skyrocketed the last time the government abolished negative gearing. I also pointed out that negative gearing would be less worthwhile if tax rates were flatter and lower.

Also, while high property prices are a problem for new homebuyers, one must wonder whether it will be as big an election liability for the Government as some thing. After all, more people are existing property owners, and they have seen their equity increase massively. This is good news for retirees who can downsize and pocket the profits with no capital gain, and for small investors who can use the equity as collateral for an investment loan.

pax
19-07-2007, 12:25 PM
What tax breaks? You mean a deduction if an investor loses money because rent doesn't cover interest and other costs? In any case, rents skyrocketed the last time the government abolished negative gearing. I also pointed out that negative gearing would be less worthwhile if tax rates were flatter and lower.

The negative gearing system, which in Australia is massively more favourable than anywhere else in the world. This coupled with the fact that capital gains are taxed at HALF the rate of income.



Also, while high property prices are a problem for new homebuyers, one must wonder whether it will be as big an election liability for the Government as some thing. After all, more people are existing property owners, and they have seen their equity increase massively. This is good news for retirees who can downsize and pocket the profits with no capital gain, and for small investors who can use the equity as collateral for an investment loan.

Hello? Yes, no joke. This is why neither the government nor the opposition are proposing to do anything about high prices - first home buyers are small fry compared with people already in the housing market.. There are no votes in it!

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 12:44 PM
The negative gearing system, which in Australia is massively more favourable than anywhere else in the world.
As I said, flatten the tax rates and I'd be happy to trade in negative gearing.


This coupled with the fact that capital gains are taxed at HALF the rate of income.
Only for assets held over one year. And CGT is at the highest marginal rate. It is also an iniqutous double taxation, since the assets were already paid for with after-tax dollars. In any case, your policies are merely envy-driven "soak the 'rich'" which will do nothing to help the people they are ostensibly designed to help.

"Envy plus rhetoric equals 'social justice'." Thomas Sowell


Hello? Yes, no joke. This is why neither the government nor the opposition are proposing to do anything about high prices - first home buyers are small fry compared with people already in the housing market.. There are no votes in it!
So the danger to the Coalition is greatly overblown. Meanwhile, the State Governments need to do their bit by abolishing stamp duty and increasing supply of land for housing. It's ironic that those who squeal loudest about "affordable housing" are often those whose policies caused the problem. Cf. Affordable housing (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell030900.asp) and Government Created Scarcity: California's "Affordable" Housing Problem (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3359) by Thomas Sowell (December 4, 2003).

pax
19-07-2007, 01:00 PM
Only for assets held over one year. And CGT is at the highest marginal rate.
That's a completely meaningless statement. Capital Gains are taxed at the same rate as other income, except for being discounted by 50% before being added to income.



It is also an iniqutous double taxation, since the assets were already paid for with after-tax dollars.

So? It is money earned just the same as someone who earns a salary. Or do you think that someone who turns $100,000 into $10million as a full-time investor should live his life completely tax-free?



In any case, your policies are merely envy-driven "soak the 'rich'" which will do nothing to help the people they are ostensibly designed to help.
Bullshit. I'm just pointing out that investors have massive tax breaks which artificially supports high land prices, and that this isn't helping first home buyers.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 02:43 PM
That's a completely meaningless statement. Capital Gains are taxed at the same rate as other income, except for being discounted by 50% before being added to income.
As I said, only after holding for a year. If the asset is held long enough, there is the iniquitous taxation of something that has not really increased in value at all because inflation has eroded it.


So? It is money earned just the same as someone who earns a salary. Or do you think that someone who turns $100,000 into $10million as a full-time investor should live his life completely tax-free?
The usual envy-mongering, and forgetting that hard cases make bad law. BTW, the CGT would apply only if he sells this asset.


Bullshit. I'm just pointing out that investors have massive tax breaks
The tax breaks are so massive because the tax rates are so massive—government confiscates almost half the income of the "rich", and 10% more on any consumption.


which artificially supports high land prices, and that this isn't helping first home buyers.
Remove the tax break, and the costs will be passed on to first home buyers and renters, as happened before. Meanwhile, you are happy for governments to confiscate money in the arbitrary stamp duty, which is a real cost.

pax
19-07-2007, 03:05 PM
As I said, only after holding for a year. If the asset is held long enough, there is the iniquitous taxation of something that has not really increased in value at all because inflation has eroded it.

Inflation= about 2%. CGT discount=50%. That's some pretty good compensation.



The usual envy-mongering, and forgetting that hard cases make bad law. BTW, the CGT would apply only if he sells this asset. Which is fine, he only gets the money if he sells the asset.



The tax breaks are so massive because the tax rates are so massive—government confiscates almost half the income of the "rich", and 10% more on any consumption.
Show me someone who is paying 50% tax, and I'll show you someone who needs to hire a better accountant.



Remove the tax break, and the costs will be passed on to first home buyers and renters, as happened before.
Rubbish. Remove the tax break and there will be less demand for property, and therefore the price will go down (or go up more slowly).



Meanwhile, you are happy for governments to confiscate money in the arbitrary stamp duty, which is a real cost.
Don't put words in my mouth if you please. I never said I was happy about stamp duty..

Igor_Goldenberg
19-07-2007, 04:19 PM
Show me someone who is paying 50% tax, and I'll show you someone who needs to hire a better accountant.


That mystical "good accountant". Can you actually show a "good accountant" who will help me to pay less then 46.5%?

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 04:32 PM
Inflation= about 2%.
Under a fairly good goverment like Howard's ... It might change if Labor wins and the lefties in the government want to give the unions their reward.


CGT discount=50%. That's some pretty good compensation.
This is a discount on the profit, not sale price. But if the nominal profit has not matched inflation, it could be taxing people for a loss.

Another CGT injustice concerns actively managed funds. You buy into the fund for $1/unit which has company XYZ it bought at $2/share and is now $4/share. But it has a bad turn, and sells XYZ at $3, and the fund itself is worth 80c/unit. But there is still CGT to pay for the $1 profit, and this tax liability is lumped on unit-holders. So the unit holder ends up paying CGT although he has actually lost money personally.

Yet another concerns the ATO that is determined to disallow the 50% concession for listed investment companies, although the spirit of the law change was to allow this to put LICs on the same CGT footing as managed funds.


Show me someone who is paying 50% tax, and I'll show you someone who needs to hire a better accountant.
Ahah, another beneficiary of our disgracefully complex tax system: tax accountants. But Pax previously struck me as the sort who would whinge about accountants getting tax breaks for their rich clients.

Fact is, the top marginal tax rate is not much under half.


Rubbish. Remove the tax break and there will be less demand for property, and therefore the price will go down (or go up more slowly).
Come off it. The demand is from renters and home owners for a place in which to live. Meanwhile the State Government restricts supply of land, then whinges about unaffordable housing that their own polices cause. :wall:

And again, just learn from history: last time negative gearing was abolished, it led to skyrocketing rents, so they had to reinstate it.


Don't put words in my mouth if you please. I never said I was happy about stamp duty..
Good. The most obscene taxes are levied by the States.

pax
19-07-2007, 04:49 PM
Fact is, the top marginal tax rate is not much under half.

People like you go on about marginal tax rates as if you are paying that sort of rate on all your income. The fact is that someone earning $200,000 only pays 35% tax - much less when they factor in all their deductions.

pax
19-07-2007, 04:51 PM
That mystical "good accountant". Can you actually show a "good accountant" who will help me to pay less then 46.5%?

Since the top marginal rate is 45%, I'm impressed if you are managing to pay 46.5%!!

Igor_Goldenberg
19-07-2007, 04:55 PM
Since the top marginal rate is 45%, I'm impressed if you are managing to pay 46.5%!!
Medicare levy is 1.5%, whcih means effective rate is 46.5%
Anyhow, where is the good accountant? If you show me one that helps me pay lower rate without some dubious schemes where I actually lose money, I'll pay you a commision.

pax
19-07-2007, 05:39 PM
Medicare levy is 1.5%, whcih means effective rate is 46.5%
Anyhow, where is the good accountant? If you show me one that helps me pay lower rate without some dubious schemes where I actually lose money, I'll pay you a commision.

Firstly, 45% is marginal tax rate, not actual tax rate. You are probably actually paying less than 35% tax. A good tax accountant is not going to lower the rate of tax, but will lower the amount on which tax is payable which is money in your pocket just the same. Going on about the marginal tax rate suits people like Jono who would like you to believe you are paying more tax that you really are.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 05:41 PM
People like you go on about marginal tax rates as if you are paying that sort of rate on all your income.
No I don't, and I haven't revealed my own income because it's none of your business.

The point about marginal taxes is that they are what we must consider when trying to earn extra money, e.g. overtime, promotion with extra responsibility or capital gains. They also determine the tax deduction of negative gearing.


The fact is that someone earning $200,000 only pays 35% tax - much less when they factor in all their deductions.
Including the ones earned by your tax accountant :P But don't forget the GST.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 05:45 PM
Medicare levy is 1.5%, whcih means effective rate is 46.5%
Which as you and I know, but apparently not Pax, affects how people consider how worthwhile earning extra money really is. Governments confiscating almost half this extra money is a great deterrent to this extra economic activity. Pax has evidently ignored the posts about the Laffer Curve.

Anyhow, where is the good accountant? If you show me one that helps me pay lower rate without some dubious schemes where I actually lose money, I'll pay you a commision.
Indeed, that's one good reason to prefer a low flat rate of tax in return for abolishing negative gearing: less incentive to try financially dubious schemes to "save tax".

Basil
19-07-2007, 06:39 PM
I am may be able to assist by rectifying some (unintended) misinformation from both sides. Other information is posted here for clarity for the independent reader.

A person earning exactly $200,000 p.a. will pay exactly*:

-- a total of $72,644 tax p.a.
-- which is an effective tax rate of 36.32% (including the Medicare levy)
-- which incorporates a calculation using the top marginal tax rate (of 46.5% including the Medicare levy) for every gross dollar earned over $2,566 per week (or once gross earnings reach $133,432 p.a.).
* based on claiming the tax-free threshold with no leave loading

I am assuming all parties recognise that some people are entitled to earn this amount, and therefore the gross earning is not an issue for discussion here.

Tax deductions for 'high earning' PAYG employees are not as easy to come by as one may think. Not only is the scrutiny high, but the ramifications for false claims are considerable. Even ambit claims which are rejected incur greater follow-up scrutiny. While (attempted) rorting exists, it is certainly not commonplace.

Which leaves us with the appropriateness of indirect deductions/ breaks/ gearings on investments.

Thank you for your attention, everybody carry on!

Desmond
19-07-2007, 06:59 PM
No I don't, and I haven't revealed my own income because it's none of your business.Just a general question: why is income such a private thing?

pax
19-07-2007, 09:37 PM
Which as you and I know, but apparently not Pax, affects how people consider how worthwhile earning extra money really is. Governments confiscating almost half this extra money is a great deterrent to this extra economic activity. Pax has evidently ignored the posts about the Laffer Curve.


You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more. Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money? Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..

Igor_Goldenberg
19-07-2007, 10:41 PM
You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more. Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money? Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..

FYI, I have a friend who used to work one night as a taxi driver to supplement his salary, which pushed him over top tax bracket.
And yes, people earning $150,000 might want to do some extra work and might even dare to hope to earn something in return.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2007, 10:53 PM
You grossly overstate both the 'incentive' to earn more money provided by tax cuts, and the economic consequences of people earning (a bit) more.
Not at all. In America, the tax cuts by Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and GWB were very good for the economy. As I've tried to explain to the assorted lefties, what can be cut or increased is tax rate, and these presidents increased the total tax revenue by cutting the rate.


Do you really think people earning $150,000 need incentive to earn more money?
Maybe if they want to send their kids through college, or have to pay some shyster lawyer's fees.


Perhaps cutting that top rate of tax will really make Alan Moss consider moonlighting as a taxi driver..
How about people accepting a promotion that leads to some longer hours and greater responsibility?

Meanwhile, if the taxes are too punitive, either less productive economic work will be done, or they will find tax shelters overseas. Look at the leading sportsmen like Björn Borg and Ulf Andersson who life away from their native Sweden.

Basil
20-07-2007, 12:29 AM
Just a general question: why is income such a private thing?
Private all together or or not willing to publish on a BB?

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 11:39 AM
Allister Heath defended the much-maligned multinationals in “The gift of work is best of all”, The Australian , 19 December 2006. Yet so many leftists denounce maultinationals in favour of foreign "aid" or socialism, even though socialism has totally wrecked the economy of Zimbabwe, once the 'breadbasket of Africa", and caused famines in the Ukraine, the former "breadbasket of Europe".


[T]he stark reality is that the remarkable alleviation of poverty witnessed in recent years in Asian countries such as India and China has nothing to do with handouts and everything to do with governments embracing the institutions of capitalism. The only way sub-Saharan Africa will be able to feed and clothe its people is if African politicians follow suit, and that is where multinationals, the foot soldiers of the market economy, come in.

The widespread view, even among those who should know better, is that multinationals exploit workers in poor countries by paying them extremely low wages and keeping them in sweatshop conditions, then make a bundle by selling the goods they make at huge profit margins in the West.

A related argument is that multinationals regularly violate the human rights of their poorest workers and perpetuate the disgrace that is child labour. But the truth, as is so often the case, is the opposite.

…Far from exploiting the rock-bottom wage rates generally paid in the poorest countries, multinationals tend to pay well above the going rate in the areas in which they are located.
In the case of US multinationals, pay is 40 per cent to 100 per cent above local wages. No wonder locals queue up to get a job whenever a multinational opens its doors in a poor country: wages that may look miserable to us allow their recipients in Burma or Bangladesh to live in relative comfort.

Working conditions in factories owned and operated by multinationals are invariably superior to those of their local competitors. Western firms also know better than to employ child labour, if only to protect themselves from adverse publicity back home. Multinationals help to transfer capital, resources, skills and technical know-how across borders. Workers trained by global companies are invariably more productive than those in local firms, and when the workers move on they take their knowledge with them, helping to spread better working practices, increased productivity and higher living standards.

It is also wrong to believe that multinationals make huge profits from factories in Asia or Latin America. Competition is such that producing manufactured goods to export to the West is a low-margin business. After wages, raw material costs and transport are taken into account, there is little left.

The case of Vietnam is especially instructive. Workers fortunate enough to work for multinationals there enjoy a standard of living that is twice as high as that of the rest of the population.
In a paper debunking the sweatshop myth, Paul Glewwe, a leading development economist, revealed that the average wage-earner in Vietnam earned US23c an hour, but workers in foreign-owned businesses fared far better, making an average of US42c an hour [Are Foreign-Owned Businesses in Viet Nam Really Sweatshops? (http://www.extension.umn.edu/newsletters/ageconomist/components/ag237-701a.html), University of Minnesota Extension Service Newsletter 701, Summer, 2000]. When Glewwe conducted his work, 15 per cent of Vietnamese were classified as very poor and 37 per cent as poor. But nobody working for multinationals was classified as very poor and only about 8 per cent were poor, proving that working for a foreign company is the best way to escape poverty and deprivation. Foreign employers drive wealth creation, pushing up everybody's wages.

The presence of multinationals in Vietnam also disproportionately benefits women and the young, two groups that are usually marginalised in poor countries. Two-thirds of workers in foreign-owned businesses in Vietnam are women, and nearly two-thirds are in their 20s, confirming that globalisation is driving social change and female emancipation.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2007, 02:09 PM
As Kenyan economics expert, James Shikwati, explains, foreign aid to Africa “does more harm than good.” Shikwati’s plea to western governments and aid organisations is “…for God's sake, please just stop!” [“For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Der Spiegel, 4 July 2005] He continues:

Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor…Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.Shikwati adds:

When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program—which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa…and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.
In relation to the AIDS ‘epidemic,’ Shikwati observes:

AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical…Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: “The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.”
With respect to material assistance from western countries, Shikwati asks:

Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livelihoods. They’re in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria’s textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide. It would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.

[Cited in Andrew Kulikovsky's paper]

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 01:58 PM
Communism killed the economies under its control. But after the fall of the evil Empire, one of its victims, Estonia, the birthplace of great chessplayers like Paul Keres and Ortvin Sarapu, rose to economic prosperity. It ranks 12th in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, ahead of Japan and Germany.

Their post-communist leaders instituted real reforms, including the vital private ownership of property, deregulating the economy, a flat tax on income, and abolishing subsidies and tariffs. They also refused foreign 'aid' and loans from the World Bank and the IMF, because they would perpetuate dependency, and instead encouraged foreign investment and trade. Mart Laar, Estonian Prime Minister 1992 to 1994 and 1999 to 2002, explains more in The Estonian Economic Miracle (http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg2060.cfm).

DanielBell
10-08-2007, 08:22 PM
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I score 100 socially and 100 economically. I don't usually get perfect scores in tests! ;)

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 09:35 PM
I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular.

I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".

But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about) so I don't regard a reading based on small sample size as very meaningful.

It's interesting that their stats for people taking the test show so many scoring "libertarian" when libertarians are actually not a very large portion of political society even in the USA. This could reflect defects in their testing or it may confirm the view that libertarians, while not that common, are very net-active. There used to be a jokey maxim on USENET that the ultimate subject of every USENET discussion was libertarianism, and it often seems to be that way in the non-chess section here too.

Basil
10-08-2007, 09:39 PM
I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".
Every time I think such a talent is beyond help and teetering on the precipice, my faith all things good is restored.


But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about)
Card. Good. Associated issues. Of Course. Nevertheless. Card. Good. Axiom. I don't want any of your dribble. Mods. If it surfaces. Kill it.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 09:44 PM
Every time I think such a talent is beyond help and teetering on the precipice,

You seem rather prone to think that on the basis of specific single issues, ignoring the broader picture of my almost-all-over-the-place political thought.

If I add 100 words of greenie-baiting to every otherwise leftist post I make, will it help? :lol:

DanielBell
10-08-2007, 09:50 PM
I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular.

I get (80,40) which puts me near the edge of the "left liberal" quarter, very close to the corner with "libertarian" and "centrist".

But some of these are issues I might give a different answer about on a different day of the week (eg whether there is or is not a national ID card is something I've struggled for decades to really give a fig about) so I don't regard a reading based on small sample size as very meaningful.

It's interesting that their stats for people taking the test show so many scoring "libertarian" when libertarians are actually not a very large portion of political society even in the USA. This could reflect defects in their testing or it may confirm the view that libertarians, while not that common, are very net-active. There used to be a jokey maxim on USENET that the ultimate subject of every USENET discussion was libertarianism, and it often seems to be that way in the non-chess section here too.

I think it's probably engineered to create answers in their favour. They actually change the questions a lot.. For instance I have a card here that asks if you support government handouts for businesses, however when I did the test a while back it actually asked about government handouts in general which of course would receive different answers by some.

I wouldn't recommend that test to someone trying to find political direction but I just wanted to throw in the perfect score gag :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 09:52 PM
I wouldn't recommend that test to someone trying to find political direction but I just wanted to throw in the perfect score gag :uhoh:

:lol: I thought my score on traditional values for the Aus Politics one was suitably perfect.

Desmond
10-08-2007, 10:36 PM
I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular. I would have to agree with this. The quiz involved a number of questions about same-sex couples, which happens to be an area that I far-left. Ask a different set of question, and my moral compass would probably move significantly closer to the centre.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2007, 03:42 PM
I prefer tests with lots of questions as they are less granular.
Probably better, but they make the usual labels less meaningful.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-08-2007, 11:20 PM
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I score 100 socially and 100 economically. I don't usually get perfect scores in tests! ;)

My goodness! You even overcame my score! (only 80 economically, as I do not think charities should replace social security)

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2008, 11:29 PM
Shame I didn't see this at the time.

http://politicalcompass.org/aus2007

Political Compass take on Australian parties at the 2007 Federal Election, claiming most parties to be both economically and socially right-wing.

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Ditto for US pres candidates.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2008, 11:31 AM
Why Are Conservative Writers Funnier? (http://spstrangio.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/why-are-conservatives-funnier/)


Last week, I sat through a whole morning at work pondering a thorny and controversial question: why are conservatives so often the best political writers?

...

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that many on the Left are weighed down with political commitments that encourage the smothering out of humorous or irreverent impulses. To accept the basic precept of political correctness — that the words we use directly shape the reality we live in — is to accept that there are certain things that are just too serious for a writer to joke about. Political activism, for instance; or anything that might cause ‘offence’ to women, ethnic groups, religious groups, animal-lovers, the disabled, the young, the old, the unemployed, the indigent or the ‘queer’. Once this muzzle of PC orthodoxy is strapped into place, the only remaining options for the aspiring wit are a) political activism, with its kindergarten reckonings and dead rhyming chants; b) rote establishment-bashing; and c) achieving the ‘ironic’ ‘subversion’ of ‘dominant modes of representation’, in the Judith Butler vein. These are hardly the ingredients for a digestible or entertaining prose-style.

Another factor may be that few truly interesting intellectuals remain committed left-wingers beyond their first publishing deal. To take just one example: the brightest of the second-wave feminists — Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolf, Germaine Greer — have long drifted away from the totem of social constructionism to embrace an old heresy: the possibility that biology plays a roughly equal role in the creation of gender differences as does socialization. Indeed, any true intellectual would immediately leap at the opportunity to pull apart the fascinating implications of this position, rather than falling back into the bosom of the all-embracing ‘gender theory’ that is still worshipped like a lingum in the ziggurat of the liberal academy.

Extrapolating from Wittgenstein’s dictum that good ideas should be able to be expressed well (thanks, Yosh), it’s not entirely inaccurate to argue that left-wingers are bad writers because they are so often peddling bad ideas. While I’ve always supported left-wing positions on particular issues — from abortion rights to gay civil unions to opposing the war in Iraq — nothing is more reductive than applying a socio-political template that ‘explains’ everything and quashes all ambiguity. One might say that the tendency to boil down the complexities and contradictions of human existence to an easily ingestible political opiate is the reflex action of a juvenile mind; but the surprise is less that this sort of thinking exists — since it does on both Left and Right — than the fact that it is so disproportionately prevalent amongst the crème de la crème of the Left.

Well-educated conservatives, on the other hand, have less ideological preconceptions about the use of language, and so less reason for self-restraint in their writing. If one rejects social constructionism — and with it, the whole superstructure of speech codes, censorship and political correctness — public debate becomes less an argument about words (‘you can’t say that!’) and more an argument about ideas. If offense is taken, so be it: to paraphrase Supreme Justice of the US Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes, every idea is potentially an incitement; and it is not to state’s job to dish out self-esteem to everyone ‘offended’ by simple words or phrases. This type of debate — free of ideological shackles — lends itself well to extravagant self-expression and the parry and thrust of well-honed wit, which seems, for better or worse, to be a strong suit of the centre-Right.

...

Add to this the academic Left’s penchant for self-parody — a veritable Vegas of dazzling illogic – and you’ve pretty much rounded out the argument. Consider, just for fun, the following examples: firstly, the case of Dartmouth professor Priya Venkatesan (http://dartlog.net/2008/04/professor-to-sue-students-for.php) (and here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120995103004666569.html)) who recently threatened to sue her students for violating her civil rights in class by disagreeing and questioning the authority of her ‘French narrative theory’ (no joke); or the Yale art student (http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/04/18/yale_abortion_and_the_limits_o/)who repeatedly inseminated herself and then allegedly miscarried the pregnancies as part of an video art project that demonstrated, somehow, ‘the ambiguity surrounding [the] form and function of a woman’s body’. (The stunt may or may not have been faked (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080418/D903VVSO0.html)by the student). As I read about these two cases, I could practically hear the pundits tumbling over each other in their attempts to skewer them using the most finely-worded effusions of wit. With such source material, is there any way that conservatives can lose?

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2010, 02:33 AM
Election 2010: What's Your Politics (http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/federal-election-2010-whats-your-politics/story-e6frfllr-1225888957047)

This is a rather odd effort that tries to work out your political views by asking you a series of questions about how you behave in relatively normal (not obviously political) situations and then whacks you onto a political compass.

I'm not really sure how well this sort of thing really works and how skewed this interpretation of it is. In my case it put me in the same quadrant I'm normally in, and only put me marginally left of centre on economics (which is normal) but it also didn't put me much closer to centrist than most progressive/conservative measures do.

Of the range of famous political figures (and in some cases fairly irrelevant celebrities) on its compass, one interpretation is interesting: Bob Brown is placed in the authoritarian left corner, as is Bono, unlike Gandhi, Mandela et al.

Anyway out of the 22 figures included the closest match it could find to my views is ...

Julia Gillard 88%

No surprise really given the rest of that lot.

Anyone else want a go?

Goughfather
20-07-2010, 02:57 AM
I got 94 percent for Aung San Suu Kyi. Gillard scored 70 percent and Abbott scored 65 percent.

I think the test mistook my apathy and phlegmatic disposition for libertarianism.

Generally, I try to do these test a number of times and find that after about three or four times, the results tend to be more accurate.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2010, 04:06 AM
Rather strange test. But it put me in the same quadrant as normal, but only barely (Conservative libertarian). Anyway I got 92% Arnold Schwarzenegger: "best to leave hands off economy; OK to live and let live. Strangely, 89% Gillard, 87% Abbott.

Spiny Norman
20-07-2010, 07:18 AM
Rather strange test. But it put me in the same quadrant as normal, but only barely (Conservative libertarian). Anyway I got 92% Arnold Schwarzenegger: "best to leave hands off economy; OK to live and let live. Strangely, 89% Gillard, 87% Abbott.
Hmmm ... that's interesting ... I scored EXACTLY the same as Jono ... :lol:

antichrist
20-07-2010, 07:42 AM
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that many on the Left are weighed down with political commitments that encourage the smothering out of humorous or irreverent impulses. To accept the basic precept of political correctness — that the words we use directly shape the reality we live in — is to accept that there are certain things that are just too serious for a writer to joke about. Political activism, for instance; or anything that might cause ‘offence’ to women, ethnic groups, religious groups, animal-lovers, the disabled, the young, the old, the unemployed, the indigent or the ‘queer’. Once this muzzle of PC orthodoxy is strapped into place, the only remaining options for the aspiring wit are a) political activism, with its kindergarten reckonings and dead rhyming chants; b) rote establishment-bashing; and c) achieving the ‘ironic’ ‘subversion’ of ‘dominant modes of representation’, in the Judith Butler vein. These are hardly the ingredients for a digestible or entertaining prose-style.

AC
Jono, my mother only had minimum education as that was all that was required in those days. She was not left wing at all nor too sensitive about people's feelings but she could crack wonderful jokes (and was popular for doing so) without mentioning any of the minorities bolded above.

How and why was she like this. From what I can establish she taught us that Lebanese respect peolple, you don't treat them badly or rudely. From what many visitors to Lebanon tell me is that the Lebanese treat foreign visistors very very well.

So it is only basic decency not to be rude about people or joke at their expense. I am sure that I probably break this rule it but I was brought up here but among my "more" Lebo relos they don't crack jokes about these minorities either.

So Jono, for all your education, intelligence and oversea experiences etc it could be said that you have learnt nothing. My mother had no such experiences, no education, no good stimulating jobs and no passport.

If chess friends come to my house I prepare well for them. I go to my Jewish freinds's house for game and not even a cup of coffee. I have to take my own coffee and put the jug on myself. And whatever I do take (snacks) he will divulge a great portion of it. I am only mentioning this friend because he wears his Jewness as a badge.

Desmond
20-07-2010, 07:55 AM
96% Mother Teresa :lol:
85% Gillard
86% Abbott

Couldn't find an option for the Khe San question of "I spend the next 3 minutes covering my ears".

More libertarian than Jono? I want a recount.

antichrist
20-07-2010, 08:11 AM
96% Mother Teresa :lol:
85% Gillard
86% Abbott

Couldn't find an option for the Khe San question of "I spend the next 3 minutes covering my ears".

More libertarian than Jono? I want a recount.

I have adopted the position that Mother Teresa was a bit of a facist pig, dominering and not caring about her workers or her patients.

She sent an Aussie to work among people very sick with community diseases but did not have the workers innoculated first and so exposing them to death. And some got very sick and side affects will stay with them forever.

And all for God's graces she commented

Mephistopheles
20-07-2010, 09:14 AM
Aung San Suu Kyi 92% for me.

The quiz also picks a significant (but not enormous) preference for Gillard over Abbott for me, which is unsurprising given that I don't hold either of them in too much regard.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
20-07-2010, 09:33 AM
tony abbott 94%
julia gillard 93%
arnie 91%
obama 88%

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 11:14 AM
Aung Sun Suu Kyi 91%
Gillard 77%
Abbott 73%

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Mother Theresa 96%
Abbott 80%
Gillard 81%

Strange poll.

TheJoker
20-07-2010, 05:42 PM
For a laugh I did the test again choosing my least favoured answer

Low and behold Pauline Hanson came up as 96% match.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
21-07-2010, 07:03 AM
Mother Theresa 96%
Abbott 80%
Gillard 81%

Strange poll.

mother goldenberg has a nice ring to it igor................. ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2010, 09:13 AM
mother goldenberg has a nice ring to it igor................. ;)
Mother Goldenberg is a wonderful woman, please leave her out of the any forum discussions.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
21-07-2010, 03:36 PM
Mother Goldenberg is a wonderful woman, please leave her out of the any forum discussions.

i was just imagining what you might look like impersonating mother teresa. :D

definately nothing to do with your own mother. i sure she is a nice lady. sorry for the confusion.

Oepty
22-07-2010, 11:55 AM
Hmmm ... that's interesting ... I scored EXACTLY the same as Jono ... :lol:

And I scored exactly the same as well.

I struggled to pick any answer a lot of the questions at all because I did not like any of the answers.
Scott

Spiny Norman
23-07-2010, 08:10 AM
I struggled to pick any answer a lot of the questions at all because I did not like any of the answers.
Me too.

ER
23-07-2010, 08:17 AM
where is the blessed test?

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2010, 05:34 PM
where is the blessed test?

Click on link in my post #142.

Garvinator
23-07-2010, 06:07 PM
Governator 94%
Gillard 91%
Abbott 92%

Zwischenzug
23-07-2010, 11:14 PM
Not sure how this poll works but here are my results:
Mother Theresa 91%
Gillard 78%
Abbot 76%

Aaron Guthrie
24-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Clint Eastwood 92%
Gillard 74%
Abbot 74%

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2013, 09:53 PM
Another one just sighted: http://www.politicaltest.net/

It appears European-based and the English isn't great, and some of the questions may be a tad obscure and confusing (though I think I understood all of them, maybe).

It placed me as Liberal Cosmopolitan but others may be interested to see which they score out of:

Cosmopolitan Social Democrat
Social democratic cosmopolitan (not sure quite how those differ!)
Social Democrat
Neoliberal Democrat
Bourgeois Patriot
Liberal
Liberal Patriot
Leftist-Fascist (!!)
Liberal Cosmopolitan
Democratic National Liberal
Trotskyist
Patriotic and Authoritarian Socialist
Neo-Conservative
Authoritarian Solidarist

...and others.

Link to my results here: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/213629/ though I don't think it's a completely accurate description. (The secularist v fundie score is too low and I'm not quite that anthropocentric!)

Goughfather
14-02-2013, 12:20 AM
Social democratic cosmopolitan (not sure quite how those differ!)

Apparently I'm placed as a social democratic cosmopolitan. My results can be found at http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/213717

Mephistopheles
14-02-2013, 06:19 AM
You're all soft.

I am a cosmopolitan social democrat (http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/213942/), apparently.

It's roughly accurate but I can't see why I'm not 100% secular. Perhaps I conceded that people should be allowed to abase themselves before the sky wizard or something like that.

ER
14-02-2013, 02:05 PM
Maybe you crossed yourself like the monsignor before you entered!

Here is me:

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/213828/

Rincewind
14-02-2013, 02:32 PM
Just another cosmopolitan Social Democrat (http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/214066/).

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
14-02-2013, 05:05 PM
apparently im a liberal. i dont know how i only scored 44% secular.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/214083

William AS
14-02-2013, 09:26 PM
It says I am a Social Democratic Cosmopolitan.
Do not know how I can be 26% anarchistic, anarchists are the bane of my life. :rolleyes:
No idea where my ecological tendencies disappeared to. :confused:

ER
14-02-2013, 10:12 PM
It says I am a Social Democratic Cosmopolitan.

Greetings commarade Bill! Social Democratic Cosmopolitan here too! :)

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2013, 10:23 PM
Be interested to see some of the resident righties have a crack at this one and see if they line up on the right on every item or not. Especially the anarchist/authoritarian item.

William AS
14-02-2013, 11:24 PM
Be interested to see some of the resident righties have a crack at this one and see if they line up on the right on every item or not. Especially the anarchist/authoritarian item.
Going on the results so far, they might be feeling a little lonely at the moment.
That would explain some of their problems with feelings of insecurity. ;)

Adamski
15-02-2013, 05:20 AM
I got 94 percent for Aung San Suu Kyi. Gillard scored 70 percent and Abbott scored 65 percent.

I think the test mistook my apathy and phlegmatic disposition for libertarianism.

Generally, I try to do these test a number of times and find that after about three or four times, the results tend to be more accurate.
Stunning. Only 1% different to my Catholic mate GF. 95% match to the same Burmese leader. "Belives in individual action. Deep mistrust of central power." Hmm.
Like many, I struggled to answer some questions, not being a frequent frequenter of pubs!

Gillard 76% match, Abott70% match. No way!

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2013, 06:09 AM
Be interested to see some of the resident righties have a crack at this one and see if they line up on the right on every item or not. Especially the anarchist/authoritarian item.
You are a capitalist (http://chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=352902). 1 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 32 percent are more extremist than you.
23% cosmo v nationalistic, 35% fundamentalistic v secular, 28% reactionary v visionary, 4% anarchistic v authoritarian, 77% capitalistic v communistic, 25% militaristic v pacificistic, 58% anthropocentric v ecological.

Ian Murray
15-02-2013, 07:15 AM
Like all the good guys, I'm a social democratic Cosmopolitan. 13 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 44 percent are more extremist

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/213980_eng.jpg

I don't like the way they class ecological and anthropocentric as diametrically opposed. I regard environmentalism as being in the best interests of humankind.

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2013, 12:07 PM
You are a capitalist (http://chesschat.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=352902). 1 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 32 percent are more extremist than you.
23% cosmo v nationalistic, 35% fundamentalistic v secular, 28% reactionary v visionary, 4% anarchistic v authoritarian, 77% capitalistic v communistic, 25% militaristic v pacificistic, 58% anthropocentric v ecological.

Thanks for posting those.

William AS
20-02-2013, 08:32 PM
Be interested to see some of the resident righties have a crack at this one and see if they line up on the right on every item or not. Especially the anarchist/authoritarian item.
Interesting that the followers of the NRA or the Communist Party still have not revealed anything about their results from the latest test. ;) :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2013, 02:56 PM
Finally got the ABC's vote compass thing working. From the tenor of the questions I was fearing it was going to call me a Green but I think the leadership section where I got to vent at Milne and Abbott reduced the risk of that!

Anyway this is what it makes of my odd mix of issue positions.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/therealsleepycat/votecompass_zpsf230e9f3.jpg (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/therealsleepycat/media/votecompass_zpsf230e9f3.jpg.html)

The compass (http://www.abc.net.au/votecompass/) differs sharply in where it places the ALP compared to, eg, PoliticalCompass.org . But not so sharply in where it places me.

antichrist
05-08-2013, 03:53 PM
so you should vote ALP 1 and Greens 2 is that correct?

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2013, 05:18 PM
so you should vote ALP 1 and Greens 2 is that correct?

It doesn't claim to assess voting intention, only closeness of position, which will probably relate closely with voting intention.

Also someone might want to put someone else 1.

In terms of me generally ranking the ALP above the Greens above the Liberals at the moment that's about correct. But it wasn't in the last few months of Gillard as PM, as her opposition to SSM was a deal-breaker and I was going to put the Greens ahead of Labor over it.

Desmond
05-08-2013, 05:33 PM
Finally got the ABC's vote compass thing working. From the tenor of the questions I was fearing it was going to call me a Green but I think the leadership section where I got to vent at Milne and Abbott reduced the risk of that!

Anyway this is what it makes of my odd mix of issue positions.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/therealsleepycat/votecompass_zpsf230e9f3.jpg (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/therealsleepycat/media/votecompass_zpsf230e9f3.jpg.html)

The compass (http://www.abc.net.au/votecompass/) differs sharply in where it places the ALP compared to, eg, PoliticalCompass.org . But not so sharply in where it places me.
I did this one today as well and emailed to myself, but the email never showed up. I was about as far up towards SL as Kevin and about as far to the right as the LNP.

EDIT: that email did eventually come through but there had been an error and results were not available.

Basil
24-08-2013, 02:37 PM
I was about as far up towards SL as Kevin and about as far to the right as the LNP.
I was slightly N.W. of the The Coalition. But we're talking about 10 poofteenths north and west respectively.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2013, 06:39 PM
I took it again and the second time round I had just moved over the left/right economic line, but the ALP was still lurking on the outermost fringes of my circle.

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2013, 01:59 AM
I was about a large grid square more economically right than the Coalition, and about five small grid squares more socially conservative. My data point along with those of the three parties show quite a good correlation between social conservatism and economic rightness (which I took to mean free market friendliness).

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2013, 08:52 PM
My data point along with those of the three parties show quite a good correlation between social conservatism and economic rightness (which I took to mean free market friendliness).

I think their economic-right does mean that; their social left-right seems a bit muddled as I mentioned earlier.

This correlation is a very common one in "the anglosphere" but I've long found it baffling. Probably less common in societies with histories of authoritarianism, where oppositions may well support both open markets and personal liberty.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2016, 08:34 AM
Which country (supposedly) best matches your political views?

https://www.quotev.com/quiz/8888999

I got Liberland.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2016, 08:43 AM
Which country (supposedly) best matches your political views?

https://www.quotev.com/quiz/8888999

I got Liberland.

Wow, led by slightly conservative libertarian Vít Jedlička.

Edit: I got that as well. One of us is mismatched! ;)

jammo
14-12-2016, 02:10 PM
Wow, led by slightly conservative libertarian Vít Jedlička.

Edit: I got that as well. One of us is mismatched! ;)

Hmmm. I'm glad I don't live in Liberland if you two are residents. Wiki says its population is zero so I guess we have to now revise that to two. I got Denmark. Guessing that's a better result.

Desmond
14-12-2016, 02:37 PM
Uruguay

Garrett
14-12-2016, 04:38 PM
Brazil, for what it's worth.

Pity it wasn't matching football skills :(

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2016, 07:46 PM
Hmmm. I'm glad I don't live in Liberland if you two are residents. Wiki says its population is zero so I guess we have to now revise that to two. I got Denmark. Guessing that's a better result.While I always suspected that Capablanca-Fan doesn't really live in the real world, it's hard to believe that Kevin would have the same result.

I'm Denmark as well. Although I suspect that if there were more choices, I would have been placed in Canada or Australia, which none of the current options seem to match.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2016, 09:26 PM
I entered what I believe to be exactly the same answers again and got Denmark. Then I did it again and got Uruguay. Looks like it doesn't work properly or else responds randomly to ties.

The answer set I used was:

1. No
2 - 4. Yes
5. I support SSM
6 - 8. No.
9 Progressive >33.3
10. Mostly support
11 - 12. Yes
13. Severely restrict or ban
14. Yes

Re 7: Possibly should have clicked yes. I support a hybrid system like in Australia
Re 8: I support a conditional loans scheme of the sort we have in Australia (repayment conditional on subsequent income)
Re 9: I don't have a strong view on whether the top tax rate should be above or below 33.3.

jammo
14-12-2016, 10:51 PM
While I always suspected that Capablanca-Fan doesn't really live in the real world, it's hard to believe that Kevin would have the same result.

I'm Denmark as well. Although I suspect that if there were more choices, I would have been placed in Canada or Australia, which none of the current options seem to match.

I'm with you 100% on Capablanca-Fan there Patrick. We Danes have to stick together....

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2016, 10:58 PM
I gave the most accurate answers for current-day Australia I could and also got Denmark.

I also tried entering the most illiberal answers possible to every question, and got ISIS.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2016, 11:51 PM
I think I entered the same answers as before, and got Poland.

Try again:
1. No (Oppose conscription)
2. Yes (porn is not the government's business, even though it is not healthy)
3. No to abortion
4. Yes (sex for money is not the government's business even though I don't approve)
5. I oppose SSM
6. Yes (capital punishment, but only for proven capital crimes)
7. No to single-payer health insurance (American for socialized medicine)
8. No to free college education provided by state (no problem with Aussie system)
9. Flat income tax
10. Government has no business regulating business (apart from stopping fraud and coercion and enforcing contracts). This might literally make me a supporter of the other option "some regulations are necessary", but usually this means more than what I think the government should do.
11. Yes to government allowing views that challenge its authority, otherwise this is totalitarianism.
12. Yes, state must absolutely allow free elections.
13. Gun rights to individuals.
14. Yes to legalizing Mary-Jane.

Back to Liberland with those.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2019, 11:53 PM
Vote Compass 2019:

3785

Can't seem to find my 2016 result anywhere.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2019, 12:12 AM
Was there meant to be a link for 2019?

Has One Nation become more economically conservative? Before they leaned to agrarian socialism, e.g. trade barriers. I thought the ON spot would be better occupied by Australian Conservatives.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2019, 12:15 AM
Was there meant to be a link for 2019?

https://votecompass.abc.net.au/


Has One Nation become more economically conservative? Before they leaned to agrarian socialism, e.g. trade barriers. I thought the ON spot would be better occupied by Australian Conservatives.

One Nation votes with the Coalition in parliament a heck of a lot and I doubt they're left-wing on things like trade unions. The Australian Conservatives weren't worth ABC's time evaluating after recording 0.59% in the NSW Upper House election.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2019, 12:29 AM
One Nation votes with the Coalition in parliament a heck of a lot and I doubt they're left-wing on things like trade unions. The Australian Conservatives weren't worth ABC's time evaluating after recording 0.59% in the NSW Upper House election.I think One Nation should be represented by a large fuzzy cloud, not a point, since they're all over the place :)

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2019, 12:32 AM
https://votecompass.abc.net.au/

Thank you. Here is mine:3789

Desmond
12-04-2019, 09:07 AM
Vote Compass 2019:

Can't seem to find my 2016 result anywhere.

I found the link in my email, but it doesn't work anymore.

This time around I got a bar south and slightly east of the ALP.

Agree with ALP 62% and Coalition 55%, which sounds about right. I wonder how much of that is them agreeing with each other.

Blunderbuss
12-04-2019, 09:36 AM
https://votecompass.abc.net.au/
3790

Frank
12-04-2019, 09:37 AM
https://votecompass.abc.net.au/



An illustration of moral compass:

Music schoolmaster Clive hears the music of the spheres in his head even as he composes himself within by mentally running through a couple of gambit variations last Tuesday evening at the local chess club. He cannot conceal that he is pleased he has White. But did he notice how his opponent has set up the board?

3791


Opponent Tim, however, possesses no moral compass whatsoever- and obscure antecedents to boot.

3792

“I like to see 'em squirm”, he said.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2019, 01:32 PM
^^^

I am reminded of my opponent in a late-80s Aus junior lightning setting up the board with two queens instead of a king - apparently unintentionally to begin with - and then trying to claim a few moves in that as the game had started it was too late for me to do anything.

The late Evelyn Koshnitsky came over and sorted him out in no uncertain fashion. He was welcome to persist with his claim and be removed from the tournament, or words to that effect.

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2020, 09:48 AM
Political Compass is under fire on Twitter for calling basically everyone in politics right-wing on everything. This applies especially to its POTUS election 2020 rankings (https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020), where it considers pretty much everyone right wing except for Sanders and Gabbard who it thinks are the same as each other (??!!?)

I agree with the criticism. I had a go at the questions answering them as I thought the Liberals, Labor and Greens (or their supporters) would be most likely to answer them (of course in some cases this is difficult to say). The circles are the site's rankings for the 2019 federal election. The squares are where the site ranked the parties according to my answers on their behalf:

4093

Of course it might well be argued that there are aspects of being right-wing that the site misses. However it is clear that it is ranking parties as more right-wing than voters who would agree with those parties and hence creating a false impression that voters generally are screaming lefties compared to political parties.

Patrick Byrom
18-02-2020, 12:27 PM
Of course it might well be argued that there are aspects of being right-wing that the site misses. However it is clear that it is ranking parties as more right-wing than voters who would agree with those parties and hence creating a false impression that voters generally are screaming lefties compared to political parties.Aren't the axes normally Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian and Economic: Big Government/Small Government (or similar names)?

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2020, 04:08 PM
Aren't the axes normally Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian and Economic: Big Government/Small Government (or similar names)?

They vary between sites. Vote Compass has used Left/Right for economics since at least 2005.

Patrick Byrom
18-02-2020, 06:37 PM
They vary between sites. Vote Compass has used Left/Right for economics since at least 2005.That still seems confusing to me, as there are parties on both the left and right that support big government.

Patrick Byrom
18-02-2020, 07:01 PM
... I agree with the criticism. I had a go at the questions answering them as I thought the Liberals, Labor and Greens (or their supporters) would be most likely to answer them (of course in some cases this is difficult to say). The circles are the site's rankings for the 2019 federal election. The squares are where the site ranked the parties according to my answers on their behalf: ...
Of course it might well be argued that there are aspects of being right-wing that the site misses. However it is clear that it is ranking parties as more right-wing than voters who would agree with those parties and hence creating a false impression that voters generally are screaming lefties compared to political parties.I tried to give the answers that might match a right-wing Labor voter, and got slightly to the left of dead center - more authoritarian than your answers implied, but about the same on the size of government. There's no way that I could see the Labor party being so far to the 'right' on the economic axis. Unless they are using European parties as the standard?

antichrist
18-02-2020, 09:21 PM
Capa fan, your yes to Mary Jane matches most people but people born mid last century now swear off the stuff. Completely opposite to when they 50-60 range. They have not told me exactly why but I have seen real crazy cases.

Mary Jane is not an accommodating lady is she?

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2020, 12:56 AM
Capa fan, your yes to Mary Jane matches most people but people born mid last century now swear off the stuff. Completely opposite to when they 50-60 range. They have not told me exactly why but I have seen real crazy cases.

Mary Jane is not an accommodating lady is she?

I've never used her and have no intention of doing so, and would advise others not to as well. But I don't think people should be locked in cages for it.

antichrist
19-02-2020, 09:09 AM
I've never used her and have no intention of doing so, and would advise others not to as well. But I don't think people should be locked in cages for it.

Partly on topic I am against because of should not be costing the tax payer that is fellow worker extra unnecessary money if things go wrong.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2020, 09:28 AM
Partly on topic I am against because of should not be costing the tax payer that is fellow worker extra unnecessary money if things go wrong.

Then ban football as well.

antichrist
19-02-2020, 09:40 AM
Then ban football as well.
I take elsewhere

Capablanca-Fan
20-02-2020, 05:33 AM
Partly on topic I am against because of should not be costing the tax payer that is fellow worker extra unnecessary money if things go wrong.

That is a problem with socialism not with MJ. And it costs a fortune to lock people in cages, and there are ongoing costs even after release, because this record of having committed a (victimless) crime makes it harder to find productive work.