The Political Compass test
hurley_108 @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:19 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
This came up about 20 years ago when Nike opened a plant in Honduras. Nike was really trying to be a good corporate citizen and started out paying their employees in Honduras a wage of US$5 per hour.
In Honduras at that time $5 was a good wage for the day.
Nike, in their generosity, caused a bit of a social and economic problem for Honduras as people were suddenly flush with money and that caused an inflationary spike in the country. The Honduran government prevailed on Nike to lower it's wage to a less disruptive $3 per hour.
Something is better than nothing, but there is also a responsibility to not give too much because that can be just as harmful as too little.
In the case of our proverbial Malawian, I would not give him $2 per hour if that would be disruptive to his country.
In Honduras at that time $5 was a good wage for the day.
Nike, in their generosity, caused a bit of a social and economic problem for Honduras as people were suddenly flush with money and that caused an inflationary spike in the country. The Honduran government prevailed on Nike to lower it's wage to a less disruptive $3 per hour.
Something is better than nothing, but there is also a responsibility to not give too much because that can be just as harmful as too little.
In the case of our proverbial Malawian, I would not give him $2 per hour if that would be disruptive to his country.
I hadn't heard that specific story, but I have heard other similar stories of farm yeilds increased manyfold and causing similar disruptions.
$1:
But I would definitely invest money in providing benefits to him and (this is just me, mind you) I'd be building schools to educate my worker's kids so that they could build a better life for themselves.
Just me, mind you, but if I was making 99% profits then it would be easy for me to be generous to the people who needed it - I couldn't sleep at night if I did otherwise.
Just me, mind you, but if I was making 99% profits then it would be easy for me to be generous to the people who needed it - I couldn't sleep at night if I did otherwise.
You're a good man.
CapeApe @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:40 pm
right up there with Gandi and mandela
ryan29 @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:00 pm
also saw this test on facebook , you can take it and have the results added to your profile.
but i've yet to actually take it myself.
Wally_Sconce @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:18 am
Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41
I just disagreed with everything
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:47 am
CapeApe CapeApe:
right up there with Gandi and mandela
I don't presume to be up there with the Mahatma, but thank you. So far as Mr. Mandela goes, I'd rather not be compared to a terrorist who admittedly used to 'necklace' his victims.
'Necklacing' is putting a petrol soaked tire about a pperson and then setting it ablaze.
Not exactly a man of peace, that.
hurley_108 @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:57 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
CapeApe CapeApe:
right up there with Gandi and mandela
I don't presume to be up there with the Mahatma, but thank you. So far as Mr. Mandela goes, I'd rather not be compared to a terrorist who admittedly used to 'necklace' his victims.
'Necklacing' is putting a petrol soaked tire about a pperson and then setting it ablaze.
Not exactly a man of peace, that.
Funny (but not really) how two men fighting such similar causes and who are placed in the same quadrant could turn to such radically different methods.
Tricks @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:36 am
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.41
neopundit @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:19 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Does a highly productive, rich thief have a right to keep his ill-gotten gains? Naturally, no. But then one must define theft.
Theft is very easy to define. Taking someone's property without permission.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
But if you're down on your luck and in debt and I offer you a loan with a 200% interest rate, and know I can since nowhere else will offer you any loan at all, is that not also a kind of theft?
Not at all. You are free to make your own decision concerning the loan. I am not taking your property. Is it immoral? Perhaps, but that is a judgment call. There are no moral standards.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Is it theft if I can get away with paying you $1 for your labour in producing something I can sell somewhere else for $100, since you are incapable of selling it yourself, and I can in my position of relative priveledge?
No, because once again you have the choice to work, or not work. If you choose to not work, then the the employer has no choice but to raise wages until you do. Or move.
Besides, this would never happen in the real world, and most certainly would never occur if we had anything near free markets. You're making $99 profit? Well, someone could move in, attract all your workers for $2/hour, and make only $98 profit, but be perfectly happy with that.
Blue_Nose @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:38 am
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Does a highly productive, rich thief have a right to keep his ill-gotten gains? Naturally, no. But then one must define theft.
Theft is very easy to define. Taking someone's property without permission.
Now, if someone "needs" a loan (to use the previous example) to sustain their family and they're given an unfair price because they don't have another option, is that similar to the example above?
If you don't like the loan example, then you can substitute the example of necessary medical procedures, etc.
I'm certainly not advocating a socialist viewpoint, but hurley's point that theft can be considered in different ways.
neopundit neopundit:
Not at all. You are free to make your own decision concerning the loan. I am not taking your property. Is it immoral? Perhaps, but that is a judgment call. There are no moral standards.
Is the general argument against theft not a moral one?
hurley_108 @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:59 am
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Does a highly productive, rich thief have a right to keep his ill-gotten gains? Naturally, no. But then one must define theft.
Theft is very easy to define. Taking someone's property without permission.
Now, if someone "needs" a loan (to use the previous example) to sustain their family and they're given an unfair price because they don't have another option, is that similar to the example above?
If you don't like the loan example, then you can substitute the example of necessary medical procedures, etc.
I'm certainly not advocating a socialist viewpoint, but hurley's point that theft can be considered in different ways.
In as few words as I can reduce it to, I would say that theft is taking someone's equity without their free permission. To further define terms, equity can be one's physical property, money, productivity, anything which can be bartered for wealth. Free permission is permission given under no duress.
If one truly has a free choice between working for one company or another, then one gives the company of one's choice the "permission" to use their productivity in exchange for a wage. Such a choice can be made based upon the wage, the benefits, anything where one company is seen to be more positive than the other.
But if the dichotomy comes more from one company being less negative than the other (factory A gives you 10 lashes for missing quota whereas factory B gives you 20), or if the choice is between famine on the farm or slavery in the factory, then that's a decision made under duress and I would hardly say that counts as "permission."
neopundit @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:34 am
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Define "permission", then - if I hold a gun to your head and ask for your permission to take your wallet, does the fact that you agreed make it something other than theft?
That's permission granted through threat of violence, which is extortion.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Now, if someone "needs" a loan (to use the previous example) to sustain their family and they're given an unfair price because they don't have another option, is that similar to the example above?
Should somebody help him? Yes. Must somebody? No. Fortunately for him, there are plenty of kind people.
It's easy to come up with a hypothetical situation like this, but, in my opinion, we have to take it a step further. Why is this man in need of money? Did he risk it all on some crazy venture, therefore the 200% risk premium is justified? How do we know, for fact, that our money/loan won't be squandered? Isn't that stupidity on our part?
That's certainly not always the case, but it is sometimes.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
If you don't like the loan example, then you can substitute the example of necessary medical procedures, etc.
Is surgery for a smoking-related disease considered necessary? I'm reaching, but then again I believe in universal health care, to a degree.
neopundit @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:42 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
But if the dichotomy comes more from one company being less negative than the other (factory A gives you 10 lashes for missing quota whereas factory B gives you 20), or if the choice is between famine on the farm or slavery in the factory, then that's a decision made under duress and I would hardly say that counts as "permission."
I'm with you right up to here.
Essentially, you are selling your labour to the company. If the price (wage) isn't right, you don't sell it. You choose to starve or make what you can. In your above scenario, if the factory doesn't exist at all there is no decision. You starve, apparently.
Besides, being physically punished would be against Libertarian principles and laws, and begins to fall out of the realm of economics.
BartSimpson @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:14 pm
neopundit neopundit:
Essentially, you are selling your labour to the company. If the price (wage) isn't right, you don't sell it. You choose to starve or make what you can. In your above scenario, if the factory doesn't exist at all there is no decision. You starve, apparently.
For too many leftists, closing the factory (either directly or by incompetent or corrupt management by government officials) is a viable choice if it is a step to implementing their socialist dreams.
Witness Zimbabwe where a relative few, white-owned farms fed that nation and exported the excess to feed other nations. The neo-socialist kleptocracy of Robert Mugabe stole the white-owned farms because the blacks were flat-out jealous of the whites and their relative wealth and the whites were forced to leave the country.
Did the socialists come in and run the famrs just as well as the white folks did? Nope, they looted the farms and now Zimbabwe is starving.
But the whole idea sounded good when it was promoted to ignorant people who thought that they could share the wealth by seizing it.
So in the case of Zimbabwe they did get rid of their employer and now they are starving.
Serves them right, too.
hurley_108 @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:48 pm
neopundit neopundit:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
But if the dichotomy comes more from one company being less negative than the other (factory A gives you 10 lashes for missing quota whereas factory B gives you 20), or if the choice is between famine on the farm or slavery in the factory, then that's a decision made under duress and I would hardly say that counts as "permission."
I'm with you right up to here.
Essentially, you are selling your labour to the company. If the price (wage) isn't right, you don't sell it. You choose to starve or make what you can. In your above scenario, if the factory doesn't exist at all there is no decision. You starve, apparently.
Besides, being physically punished would be against Libertarian principles and laws, and begins to fall out of the realm of economics.
Choosing to starve is hardly a choice. Unless everyone chooses it (mass hunger strike, basically), it gains nobody anything and it's just one more unnoticed death.
But what are you saying, that sweatshops are a good thing because they let people live, and pay them to boot? Just because people would die if a factory wasn't there to employ them doesn't give that factory the right to pay them the bare minimum that gets them on the machines. It's just as much extortion as Blue Nose's example of armed robbery.
And just because something is out of the realm of economics doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Lawlessness and violence are rampant in the developing world, and are enormous factors in the lives of millions.
Knoss @ Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:25 am
$1:
But what are you saying, that sweatshops are a good thing because they let people live, and pay them to boot? Just because people would die if a factory wasn't there to employ them doesn't give that factory the right to pay them the bare minimum that gets them on the machines. It's just as much extortion as Blue Nose's example of armed robbery.
That is how every job works.