Jump to content

What Are Your Political Views, Generally?


maqroll

What Are Your Politcal Views, Generally?  

99 members have voted

  1. 1. What Are Your Politcal Views, Generally?

    • Far Right
      4
    • Right
      13
    • Center Right
      19
    • Center
      7
    • Center Left
      29
    • Left
      19
    • Far Left
      10


Recommended Posts

I think I just read the poll options and typed automatically. I'll be typing aluuuuminum and errrbs next.

I find it quite interesting that some continental Europeans speak and write American English, and some speak and write British English.

American is the dominant flavour on the Internet (and in terms of people for whom English is the language used at home, it may well be the most common dialect). I suspect that those who learned English before the Internet tend to speak/write British (since the vast majority of printed matter in English accessible on the Continent is British).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparantly, we are all fully rational actors with complete knowledge of everything that goes on within the market we operate in.

No neo-liberal would argue that anyone could know everything within the marketplace (defined more or less as who needs/wants what and who has what). Indeed, the very thing that Hayek argued was that it was impossible for anyone to know everything.

The only way that control of the market can deliver as good an outcome as the free market is if someone knows everything within the marketplace (that is the only way that state action can obtain everybody's ability and provide everybody's needs (and since, as the great philosopher Jimmy Buffett noted, "

", we can add some of their wants).

The market, in the neo-liberal conception, is comprised of people who know, for all intents and purposes, very little beyond their own needs/wants and what they have. By placing values on those things (tangible and intangible) and interacting with others (who have placed their values on those and myriad other things) they create prices and thus relay information about who needs what and who has what.

For example, you place a value on your working time at x pounds per hour. A potential employer places a value on your labor at y pounds per hour. One party (often the potential employer, though not necessarily so) makes an offer and the other party decides, depending on whether their value indicates that the offer is over- or under-priced, whether to accept the offer or not (and if not, then might make a counter-offer or the offering party might revise the offer... or not, both parties might effectively agree to disagree and go on with things). Repeat this scene billions of times per day and prices set by actors voluntarily allow the very slight knowledge of each participant to course through the marketplace.

One need only look at Wikipedia, which in a few short years has become the greatest repository of knowledge in history, to see how allowing individuals with individually relatively little (arbitrarily close to zero) knowledge to exchange and weigh tidbits allows for a body of knowledge greater than what could be known by any person or council of people.

It never fails to amaze me that most of the left-wingers on here (and in the broader world, I might add) would find preposterous the idea that a complex system (life) requires an extremely (perhaps even omni-) scient force to order it in order to work pretty well but generally accept that in order for a complex system (the marketplace) to work pretty well, an extremely scient force to order it is required. Likewise, many of the conservative forces in society would accept to some extent that the marketplace does not need a scient force to order it but put forth complete and total bullshit that is Intelligent Design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Centre left.

You see, i'd have gone for that too Ash, but it's not an option.

EDIT: done that gag to death. Have put a tick in the centre left box too. That hasn't changed for 20 years, although if anything i'm getting further left the older i get, which is not meant to happen, is it?

It's meant to be the other way around, AFAIK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Centre left.

You see, i'd have gone for that too Ash, but it's not an option.

EDIT: done that gag to death. Have put a tick in the centre left box too. That hasn't changed for 20 years, although if anything i'm getting further left the older i get, which is not meant to happen, is it?

It's meant to be the other way around, AFAIK?

Well Mr Churchill said:

If you aren't a liberal aged 20, you haven't got a heart, if you aren't a conservative aged 40, you haven't got a head.

It's fair to say he's a little biased though :winkold:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One need only look at Wikipedia, which in a few short years has become the greatest repository of knowledge in history, to see how allowing individuals with individually relatively little (arbitrarily close to zero) knowledge to exchange and weigh tidbits allows for a body of knowledge greater than what could be known by any person or council of people.

And yet Wikipedia is a knowledge repository that, as it has grown, has more and more required the intervention of 'scient' individuals to stop abuses (that is not just intentional abuse but also factually incorrect information being put in). Unfortunately abuse still occurs and it is when it is relied upon to definitely produce the goods that it really falls down because in order to be sure that the information is correct, one really needs to check the references supplied.

The only way that control of the market can deliver as good an outcome as the free market is if someone knows everything within the marketplace...

Hold on, surely the only way that a free market can deliver its best is if everyone has perfect knowledge?

If neo-liberals accept that this is an impossibility and yet still argue for a system which, in theory, requires this then they are necessarily arguing for a flawed system; one that, by its nature, does not have the the needs and wants of all as its goal. I can see why they argue for it: it's out of an understandable human trait that concentrates on fulfilling their own needs and desires. To claim that it is the best tool to solve all economic (and associated) problems is misleading salesmanship. Also, to argue that external intervention skews an already skewed marketplace (and, by implication, is always a bad thing) strikes me as rather perverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â