Author Topic: Visual representation of wealth inequality  (Read 17102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Actually, the Political Compass quite admirably demonstrates how left-leaning public policy is largely an empty space in some of the world's largest democracies.  It also doesn't plot countries, just people, so I'm not sure how you're getting the UK as far-right.  Most of the current leaders of G8 and G20 countries lie in the authoritarian-conservative quadrant to varying degrees.

As for your misconception about ideology, the test plots around your reaction to ideological statements to determine how closely you align with or diverge from them.

Quote
That's because by the standards of most developed nations the center is a few points to the left. America also has that problem, but to a lesser degree.[/u]

Many Republicans believe that a significant number of poor people are just lazy, which is a center-right position. The far-right view would be something along the lines of "poor people have bad genes" or "poor people are inferior because they're black". Some conservatives hold those positions, but they are far from commonplace.

Other components of far-right politics are extreme nationalism (imperialism), extreme racism (ties in to the former), and authoritarianism. The Republicans are fairly nationalist, but they have only a small-to-moderate degree of racism, and outside of issues like gay marriage, abortion, and other "family values" they're not particularly authoritarian.

You're demonstrating a common misconception among American 'conservatives' that view themselves as moderate while the rest of the democratic world is ostensibly socialist.  Everyone likes to think they're centrist, because they view the center as a moderate position where the majority of people fit in political ideology (which isn't true - the center is just the point on sliding political scales at which you reach a position equidistant from the defining outer parameters - e.g. left/right, the center is equidistant from both [theoretical] communism and fascism.) "Poor people are just lazy" isn't a center-right position, it's ignorant and bigoted philosophy that stems from Rand-inspired thinking and on a left-right scale lies far-right.  The view that poor people have bad genes comes from eugenics, which has no political affiliation - that movement had common supporters among both classical liberals and conservatives.

What you're calling far-right is basically fascism, which is the EDIT: topmost-most (durr) extreme in political ideology.  Far-right (in a pure L/R sense) lies about 75% of the way there from the center, and is a fairly good description of the modern GOP, while the modern Democrats fall slightly closer to the center and are best described as center-right (again, in a pure L/R sense).  The United States has no major centrist political party.

In short, while it has flaws, the political compass is a much better barometer of your political views overall than your issue-based analysis.  Chances are you - like most people - define your political position on a few key issues which makes you think you're conservative.  Obama is painted by the media (particularly Fox and its ilk) as a 'lefty.'  Both of these descriptions run counter to where your views actually lie in a political sense - Obama's can be analyzed based on his actions (he's the most conservative Democrat president the US has had in some time), while you're explicitly stated yours in the political compass test.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:40:21 pm by MP-Ryan »
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline Apollo

  • 28
  • Free Market Fascist
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Actually, the Political Compass quite admirably demonstrates how left-leaning public policy is largely an empty space in some of the world's largest democracies.  It also doesn't plot countries, just people, so I'm not sure how you're getting the UK as far-right.

Quote
That's because by the standards of most developed nations the center is a few points to the left. America also has that problem, but to a lesser degree.

Many Republicans believe that a significant number of poor people are just lazy, which is a center-right position. The far-right view would be something along the lines of "poor people have bad genes" or "poor people are inferior because they're black". Some conservatives hold those positions, but they are far from commonplace.

Other components of far-right politics are extreme nationalism (imperialism), extreme racism (ties in to the former), and authoritarianism. The Republicans are fairly nationalist, but they have only a small-to-moderate degree of racism, and outside of issues like gay marriage, abortion, and other "family values" they're not particularly authoritarian.

You're demonstrating a common misconception among American 'conservatives' that view themselves as moderate while the rest of the democratic world is ostensibly socialist.  "Poor people are just lazy" isn't a center-right position, it's ignorant and bigoted philosophy that stems from Rand-inspired thinking and on a left-right scale lies far-right.  The view that poor people have bad genes comes from eugenics, which has no political affiliation - that movement had common supporters among both classical liberals and conservatives.

What you're calling far-right is basically fascism, which is the rightward-most extreme in political ideology.  Far right lies about 75% of the way there from the center, and is a fairly good description of the modern GOP, while the modern Democrats fall slightly closer to the center and are best described as center-right.  The United States has no major centrist political party.
It classifies the EU's governments right here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

Conservative? I'm a center-left libertarian! (Ironically, the scale actually got that right).

The view that poor people have bad genes is Social Darwinism, which is most certainly far-right. The view that poor people are lazy, on the other hand, is not. The far-right believes in the inherent inferiority of some human beings and the right of superior individuals to dominate them. The center-right does not largely hold those views.

How, when I support less entitlements than him and hold some rightist views on their morality, am I slightly leftist while Obama is far-right? I really can't comprehend how anybody could come to that conclusion (apparently welfare capitalism is far-right).

By your definition, what would a center-left person believe? Because by any reasonable objective standard I'm more rightist than Obama and most Democrats (yet I'm somehow center-left, despite their already far-right views :confused:).

EDIT: And yes, I did describe a fascist. The 75% far-right would have to hold similar views, unless the scale is quadratic for some reason.

Also, the Political Compass says that fascist views can be held by a communist. They don't consider it to be the rightmost extreme.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:24:06 pm by Apollo »
Current Project - Eos: The Coward's Blade. Coming Soon (hopefully.)

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
It classifies the EU's governments right here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

Bad Ryan, that's a new plot that they've added.  Shame on me for not checking.  Regardless, not sure how they're plotting countries since they're pretty diverse and are often elected separately from how they govern, but hey, whatever they want.

Quote
The view that poor people have bad genes is Social Darwinism, which is most certainly far-right.

 The view that poor people are lazy, on the other hand, is not. The far-right believes in the inherent inferiority of some human beings and the right of superior individuals to dominate them. The center-right does not largely hold those views.

Eugenics, as I've already said, has little to do with political affiliation - on the compass, it plots to the top center.  Social Darwinism is a far-right (L/R scale only) policy statement, yes, but the underlying thought processes have been used by all kinds of people.  The far-right often (but not always) invokes 'otherness' as a means of policy control.  Race, income, ethnic background - there are all kinds of uses and they all boil down to the same tactic:  in-group vs out-group.  It's Fascism 101, and it's trickle-down is where that notion that poor people are lazy, common to far-right ideology, comes from.  Those things might be viewed as a center-right position in the microcosm that is the US, but that's only if you look at politics based purely on a contemporary US-centric position.  In a broader context, those views plot much further right than you think they do/should.

To address your edit, I have no idea why they plot Facism center-top, perhaps because of the range of economic systems used by Fascist governments.  While Fascism is the most extreme form of authoritarianism, it's not typically centrist (if anything, the economic systems of Spain, Italy, and Germany in their fascist periods all leaned slightly left).  I also went back and corrected a couple spots, because I realized that I was jumping between compass and typical L/R descriptions without saying so and that was confusing.

Quote
How, when I support less entitlements than him and hold some rightist views on their morality, am I slightly leftist while Obama is far-right? I really can't comprehend how anybody could come to that conclusion.

Because you're looking at this from the perspective of single-issues, rather than political position generally.  Obama plots far-right because of the actions he's taken or support in governing the US as a whole - while the only tangible thing he has really done that leans leftward on the L/R axis is health care reform.  However, if you look at what those reforms actually did, it still doesn't drift into the socialist realm.

I think you're confused about the axes.  L/R measures economics, U/D measures level of government intervention.  Your views on entitlements probably plot more on the vertical axis than the horizontal - those who support more entitlements get pushed up, those who support fewer get pushed down.  Left/right focuses on wealth disparity and redistribution, and regulation of financial sectors.  Laissez-faire and trickle-down economics plot right (capitalism), while socialist policy plots left.  Obama has been a major friend to capitalism, but support government interventions.  Judging by where you say you plot, you don't like government interventions but you're not as big a fan of capitalist policies as your President.

Quote
By your standards, what would a center-left person believe?

Ignoring the governance scale?  A center-left person (e.g. between center and 50% toward communal economics models) believes in greater exercise of control over financial systems by the collective population with some wealth redistribution to address income disparity, but where economic systems are only partially controlled by the collective population.

That said, it is virtually impossible to separate the axes.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:42:38 pm by MP-Ryan »
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Much as it embarrasses me to have to link to RationalWiki, that political compass is notoriously biased and you probably shouldn't rely on it for serious commentary.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Much as it embarrasses me to have to link to RationalWiki, that political compass is notoriously biased and you probably shouldn't rely on it for serious commentary.

While their plots on countries and most people who haven't explicitly written the test are certainly wobbly, the fundamental premise is not a bad one, and the analysis of American politicians in particular is actually quite reasonable.

EDIT:  In other words, it's a useful tool for illustration purposes.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:55:18 pm by MP-Ryan »
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline Apollo

  • 28
  • Free Market Fascist
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
The view that poor people have bad genes is Social Darwinism, which is most certainly far-right.

The view that poor people are lazy, on the other hand, is not. The far-right believes in the inherent inferiority of some human beings and the right of superior individuals to dominate them. The center-right does not largely hold those views.

Eugenics, as I've already said, has little to do with political affiliation - on the compass, it plots to the top center.  Social Darwinism is a far-right (L/R scale only) policy statement, yes, but the underlying thought processes have been used by all kinds of people.  The far-right often (but not always) invokes 'otherness' as a means of policy control.  Race, income, ethnic background - there are all kinds of uses and they all boil down to the same tactic:  in-group vs out-group.  It's Fascism 101, and it's trickle-down is where that notion that poor people are lazy, common to far-right ideology, comes from.  Those things might be viewed as a center-right position in the microcosm that is the US, but that's only if you look at politics based purely on a contemporary US-centric position.  In a broader context, those views plot much further right than you think they do/should.

To address your edit, I have no idea why they plot Facism center-top, perhaps because of the range of economic systems used by Fascist governments.  While Fascism is the most extreme form of authoritarianism, it's not typically centrist (if anything, the economic systems of Spain, Italy, and Germany in their fascist periods all leaned slightly left).  I also went back and corrected a couple spots, because I realized that I was jumping between compass and typical L/R descriptions without saying so and that was confusing.
Whatever you think about eugenics (I'm not an expert on that front), Social Darwinism says that genes determine social class, and it is certainly a far-right view point.

Of course the far-right and the center-right have some similarities--they're still right-wing, after all. However, the Republicans will not be fascists until they start trying to establish a dictatorship.

Fascist governments have often used some leftist economic policies, but they possessed such extreme degrees of nationalism and far-right views on social hierarchy that they were still far-right. Except on the Compass, but that just demonstrates how completely different it is from the common Left-Right scale.

Quote
Quote
How, when I support less entitlements than him and hold some rightist views on their morality, am I slightly leftist while Obama is far-right? I really can't comprehend how anybody could come to that conclusion.

Because you're looking at this from the perspective of single-issues, rather than political position generally.  Obama plots far-right because of the actions he's taken or support in governing the US as a whole - while the only tangible thing he has really done that leans leftward on the L/R axis is health care reform.  However, if you look at what those reforms actually did, it still doesn't drift into the socialist realm.
Yeah, but I'm actually more capitalist than he is. Apparently I'm center-left while he's far-right. Go figure.

The term "far-right" has lost all its meaning on that Compass. Or are multicultural European welfare capitalists far-right? You tell me.

Quote
I think you're confused about the axes.  L/R measures economics, U/D measures level of government intervention.  Your views on entitlements probably plot more on the vertical axis than the horizontal - those who support more entitlements get pushed up, those who support fewer get pushed down.  Left/right focuses on wealth disparity and redistribution, and regulation of financial sectors.  Laissez-faire and trickle-down economics plot right (capitalism), while socialist policy plots left.  Obama has been a major friend to capitalism, but support government interventions.  Judging by where you say you plot, you don't like government interventions but you're not as big a fan of capitalist policies as your President.
Entitlements are a form of wealth redistribution using government intervention. If we separate them, the Left-Right scale now has a completely different meaning (that would explain why the Compass calls all these center-left politicians far-right). This also leads to absolutely bull**** conclusions like Obama and Romney being almost as authoritarian as Hitler and Assad. That, in and of itself, shows how badly designed this scale is.

Quote
Quote
By your standards, what would a center-left person believe?

Ignoring the governance scale?  A center-left person (e.g. between center and 50% toward communal economics models) believes in greater exercise of control over financial systems by the collective population with some wealth redistribution to address income disparity, but where economic systems are only partially controlled by the collective population.
I'd actually consider that example to be far-left (75% from the center), but whatever.

The Political Compass says I'm slightly left-wing, and while I agree with that my core economic views are still capitalist.

If I compare myself to Obama I'm still more rightist than him, so either I'm far-right or he's center-left. Either way, the scale has some serious issues.

The Democrats support significant amounts of entitlement programs and the Republicans support (at least on paper) a somewhat lesser degree. No left-wing ideas?

EDIT: I may have misread that example. What degree of collective ownership are you referring to?
Quote
That said, it is virtually impossible to separate the axes.
And there lies the crippling flaw of this Compass.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 07:15:33 am by Apollo »
Current Project - Eos: The Coward's Blade. Coming Soon (hopefully.)

 

Offline Apollo

  • 28
  • Free Market Fascist
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Much as it embarrasses me to have to link to RationalWiki, that political compass is notoriously biased and you probably shouldn't rely on it for serious commentary.
*reads page*

Quote
and noting large discrepancies between the scores actual people get on it and the scores posted for politicians and political parties.
I thought so.

EDIT: That's probably why my libertarian friend who completely opposes entitlement programs is placed as center-right while Obama (who supports them) is far-right.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 07:16:36 am by Apollo »
Current Project - Eos: The Coward's Blade. Coming Soon (hopefully.)

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Apollo, you're trying to apply single-axis political thinking to a multi-axis analysis.  If you're using a conventional left-right thougbht and trying to stick that on a 2-axis scale, the results are not going to make any sense - which is why you're running into all the problems that you're talking about, because you are still applying government intervention on the L/R scale.  With a 2-axis graph, economic policy is separate from style of governance.

Obama very much has a capitalist policy, hence why he is right of center on an economic scale.  He also believes in great levels of government intervention via entitlement programs, hence why he goes up on the authoritarian scale.  You being center-left apparently illustrates that you believe in LESS government intervention than Obama, while you favour greater wealth-distribution (or less income inequality).  There's no question that the exact plots on the graph are suspect, but as I said to PH, it's a useful conceptualization precisely because it demonstrates how little difference there actually is between political figures, whereas a single-axis scale tends to hide that information because social/governance issues end up confounded with economic policy.

You're confounding the issue by talking about the compass using single-axis terms, which makes the entire discussion quit confusing.  On a single-axis, fascism lies to the extreme right while communism lies to the extreme left.  On a compass, communism remains on the far left, but fascism lies on a spectrum across the extreme top (because fascism is not tied to any single economic policy, while it is tied to a particular form of authoritarian governance).

In terms of the views on the poor (both social darwinism and eugenics), on a pure L/R scale they lie far-right.  On a 2-axis, they fall across the top but are unbound from particular economic policy.

Quote
The term "far-right" has lost all its meaning on that Compass. Or are multicultural European welfare capitalists far-right? You tell me.

Once again, it's because you're trying to take analysis from a single dimension scale and apply it to a multidimensional scale.  On the compass they are (well, at least right of center; as I said before, take the plotted positions for countries in particular with a helping of salt), because the L/R scale is not bound to governance, just economics, and European welfare states ARE capitalist countries that have some level of wealth redistribution, but they aren't collectivist societies, either.  The center is halfway between Pure Collectivism and  Pure Capitalism; there's no question that every democracy on Earth is at least marginally closer to capitalism than collectivism.

Quote
Entitlements are a form of wealth redistribution using government intervention. If we separate them, the Left-Right scale now has a completely different meaning (that would explain why the Compass calls all these center-left politicians far-right). This also leads to absolutely bull**** conclusions like Obama and Romney being almost as authoritarian as Hitler and Assad. That, in and of itself, shows how badly designed this scale is.

Well, separating them means L/R measures only economic policy.  Whether or not you think that's a bad thing is totally up to you.  On the other hand, it does mean different cultures can talk within the same frame of reference.  Otherwise, you end up with statements where you think "the poor are lazy" is a center-right position, where the center-right pretty much everywhere other than the US would probably take some issue with that statement.

And I disagree that Obama/Romney being as authoritarian as Assad being a bull**** conclusion.  The U/D scale measures authoritarian policy without moral judgement.  Obama and Romney both have just as many interventionist policies as Assad, just expressed in a different way.  Indeed, it's a useful means of critique to show how a variety of different methods can all occupy the same political space.

Partisans get driven crazy by multidimensional political analysis because it doesn't mix well with their perceptions of the political landscape.  A lot of people can't wrap their heads around how two or more parties that seem so different can occupy the same political space, despite wildly different ideas about methods.

Were I to plot the NDP, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party in Canada, for example, I'd place them all center-right, with the Liberals and Conservatives basically on top of each other, and the NDP slightly northwest of them, but all basically touching.  If I plotted the Democrats and Republicans from the US next to them, they'd land further northeast of the Liberals/Conservatives, but basically on top of each other.

The fact of the matter is that, within democracies, mainstream parties have virtually no significant difference between them other than a few wedge policies or ideas; style of governance and economic policy diverge very little from each other.  The more divergent they are, the less equal they are in terms of number of times elected.  As the Democrats and Republicans have pretty similar time represented in office generally (not necessarily Presidency) - at least in the 20th century - it stands to reason that there is very little of substance that differs between them.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
I thought this thread was about inequality and not some random internet visualizer of your own ideas.

 

Offline Dilmah G

  • Failed juggling
  • 211
  • Do try it.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Why should I? I know what I believe and why I believe the things I do. I couldn't give a rat's ass on what other... ahhhh.... folks would place me on their own little tidy map of theirs. They need to build maps so they can tidy up what is strange and complex to them? Good for them, now get out of my lawn.

 

Offline swashmebuckle

  • 210
  • Das Lied von der Turd
    • The Perfect Band
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
I'm a renowned politicycle economogenist and the solution to wealth inequality is 5% death, 15% taxes, and 85% finger pointing.

 

Offline BloodEagle

  • 210
  • Bleeding Paradox!
    • Steam
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Why should I? I know what I believe and why I believe the things I do. I couldn't give a rat's ass on what other... ahhhh.... folks would place me on their own little tidy map of theirs. They need to build maps so they can tidy up what is strange and complex to them? Good for them, now get out of my lawn.

 :wtf:

 

Offline Apollo

  • 28
  • Free Market Fascist
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Apollo, you're trying to apply single-axis political thinking to a multi-axis analysis.  If you're using a conventional left-right thougbht and trying to stick that on a 2-axis scale, the results are not going to make any sense - which is why you're running into all the problems that you're talking about, because you are still applying government intervention on the L/R scale.  With a 2-axis graph, economic policy is separate from style of governance.

Obama very much has a capitalist policy, hence why he is right of center on an economic scale.  He also believes in great levels of government intervention via entitlement programs, hence why he goes up on the authoritarian scale.  You being center-left apparently illustrates that you believe in LESS government intervention than Obama, while you favour greater wealth-distribution (or less income inequality).  There's no question that the exact plots on the graph are suspect, but as I said to PH, it's a useful conceptualization precisely because it demonstrates how little difference there actually is between political figures, whereas a single-axis scale tends to hide that information because social/governance issues end up confounded with economic policy.
Wealth redistribution is both a government intervention and an economic policy. You cannot seperate the two from each other and get results that make any sense.

I'd still like an explanation as to how my liberterian friend who favors something very close to laissez-faire capitalism is considered center-right while Obama is far-right. If pure capitalism is a far-right ideology, wouldn't he fit there?

Also, while I consider myself to be slightly left-wing, I would be considered center-right by European and perhaps American standards. In any case, I certainly support a capitalist system.

Quote
You're confounding the issue by talking about the compass using single-axis terms, which makes the entire discussion quit confusing.  On a single-axis, fascism lies to the extreme right while communism lies to the extreme left.  On a compass, communism remains on the far left, but fascism lies on a spectrum across the extreme top (because fascism is not tied to any single economic policy, while it is tied to a particular form of authoritarian governance).
I can sort of see that. On the other hand, the Compass's definition of left and right are so very different from the convention L/R scale that they lose their meaning entirely.

Quote
In terms of the views on the poor (both social darwinism and eugenics), on a pure L/R scale they lie far-right.  On a 2-axis, they fall across the top but are unbound from particular economic policy.
True. However, most economic systems (with the exception of laissez-faire capitalism) are also political systems, because they are directed or influenced on some level by government policy.

Quote
Quote
The term "far-right" has lost all its meaning on that Compass. Or are multicultural European welfare capitalists far-right? You tell me.

Once again, it's because you're trying to take analysis from a single dimension scale and apply it to a multidimensional scale.  On the compass they are (well, at least right of center; as I said before, take the plotted positions for countries in particular with a helping of salt), because the L/R scale is not bound to governance, just economics, and European welfare states ARE capitalist countries that have some level of wealth redistribution, but they aren't collectivist societies, either.  The center is halfway between Pure Collectivism and  Pure Capitalism; there's no question that every democracy on Earth is at least marginally closer to capitalism than collectivism.
That's what I meant. By trying to seperate out social views, the Compass warps the definitions of right and left until they lose much of their common meaning. This means that it cannot be brought into any discussion using the traditional L/R scale or definitions of freedom and authoritarianism.

Quote
Quote
Entitlements are a form of wealth redistribution using government intervention. If we separate them, the Left-Right scale now has a completely different meaning (that would explain why the Compass calls all these center-left politicians far-right). This also leads to absolutely bull**** conclusions like Obama and Romney being almost as authoritarian as Hitler and Assad. That, in and of itself, shows how badly designed this scale is.

Well, separating them means L/R measures only economic policy.  Whether or not you think that's a bad thing is totally up to you.  On the other hand, it does mean different cultures can talk within the same frame of reference.  Otherwise, you end up with statements where you think "the poor are lazy" is a center-right position, where the center-right pretty much everywhere other than the US would probably take some issue with that statement.
I do consider it a bad thing, because economic policy, social policy, and government intervention are inseparable in some ways. Entitlement programs are all three! Gay marriage, abortion, and drug regulation are social policies that are subject to government intervention (which is not automatically authoritarian).

"The poor are lazy" is a center-right position on the L/R scale, being consistent with traditional capitalism... oh wait, that's far-right now (I'll get to that in a second).

Quote
And I disagree that Obama/Romney being as authoritarian as Assad being a bull**** conclusion.  The U/D scale measures authoritarian policy without moral judgement.  Obama and Romney both have just as many interventionist policies as Assad, just expressed in a different way.  Indeed, it's a useful means of critique to show how a variety of different methods can all occupy the same political space.
Do they kill people who disagree with them openly? I'd consider that to be a much stronger and pervasive government intervention than anything Romney or Obama have done.

Quote
Partisans get driven crazy by multidimensional political analysis because it doesn't mix well with their perceptions of the political landscape.  A lot of people can't wrap their heads around how two or more parties that seem so different can occupy the same political space, despite wildly different ideas about methods.
Many of them do occupy a similar economic space, but vary wildly in professed social views.

Quote
The fact of the matter is that, within democracies, mainstream parties have virtually no significant difference between them other than a few wedge policies or ideas; style of governance and economic policy diverge very little from each other.  The more divergent they are, the less equal they are in terms of number of times elected.  As the Democrats and Republicans have pretty similar time represented in office generally (not necessarily Presidency) - at least in the 20th century - it stands to reason that there is very little of substance that differs between them.
I sort of agree with you about that. Outside of social views, the Republicans and Democrats are both very, very similar (and even their social views are slowly merging).

However, when you have a system that calls the UK, Obama, and Romney far-right authoritarians while I (who hold more right-wing viewpoints than most Democrats) am considered center-left and my friend [a liberterian in the American sense (neo-liberal)] is considered center-right, you know there's a serious problem with it.

In essence, it turns capitalism into a far-right ideology by booting fascism and its horrible oppressive far-right policies out of the L/R axis and into a new U/D one. This makes it possible to classify moderate center-left welfare capitalists as right-wing extremists (which is, as I've said, inconsistent with the labeling of me and my friend as moderates).

Now, I wonder who wrote the Political Compass. What economic views could they possibly hold? Let's take a look at something from this page:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Quote
This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
I lack the knowledge to comment on much of that, and I even agree with a few things. However, it strongly suggests that the page was written by a bunch of butthurt leftists along the lines of Cenk Uygur. Couple that with the discrepancy between the placement of politicians and that of me and my friend, and I reach a conclusion: Their "analysis" of mainstream American political parties and their candidates is simply a vehicle for them to express their anti-rightist, or perhaps even anti-capitalist agenda.

EDIT: Oh, and before you accuse me of ad hominem for those last few paragraphs, remember that a great deal of my post was devoted to explaining the fundamental problems with such a system and how it diverges so much from the L/R scale that it really doesn't mean much of anything (this debate started when you made reference to and used its classification of American politicians as a source of information).
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 03:48:50 pm by Apollo »
Current Project - Eos: The Coward's Blade. Coming Soon (hopefully.)

 

Offline FlamingCobra

  • An Experiment In Weaponised Annoyance
  • 28
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality


"Blimey, this re-distribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."


It would be interesting to see the same kind of charts for other western nations, and see how the wealth is distributed in some of the countries with more "socialist" tendencies (like Finland and Sweden).

I have a feeling there would be similar "skew" between "ideal", "imagined" and "actual" distributions, but hopefully to different degree than in the US.

Also useful would be to compare with countries like Brazil, China, Nigeria, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, South Korea, Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and compare them to, say, Germany. Again, I have a feeling that the nominal "politics" of the country probably have FAR less connection to the actual distribution than people might think - ie. North Korea and China are nominally communist states, what kind of wealth distribution do you think they have?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 08:03:48 pm by Herra Tohtori »
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline Apollo

  • 28
  • Free Market Fascist
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
Me:
Current Project - Eos: The Coward's Blade. Coming Soon (hopefully.)

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
ie. North Korea and China are nominally communist states, what kind of wealth distribution do you think they have?

Anyone who believes that China is still a communist nation needs to update their thinking by about 30 years. :p

Seeing China on a graph like that would be interesting as an example of the effect of a very capitalist nation, not a communist one.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
And I disagree that Obama/Romney being as authoritarian as Assad being a bull**** conclusion.  The U/D scale measures authoritarian policy without moral judgement.  Obama and Romney both have just as many interventionist policies as Assad, just expressed in a different way.  Indeed, it's a useful means of critique to show how a variety of different methods can all occupy the same political space.


And that's how we know the discussion entered the jump-the-shark moment, that awkward place in time when someone unashamedly puts Obama, Romney and Assad in the same bag. To me that's an unequivocal evidence that such charts are complete bull****, the authors complete trolling idiots.

Could we please get back to the real discussion about inequality? Because there are very interesting things to say about what may happen when inequality goes beyond certain tipping points, there's good sci-fi material right there.


e:
It would be interesting to see the same kind of charts for other western nations, and see how the wealth is distributed in some of the countries with more "socialist" tendencies (like Finland and Sweden).

Yes, but we already have metrics of this, search for "Gini coefficient"
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 05:24:01 am by Luis Dias »

  

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Re: Visual representation of wealth inequality
I'd still like an explanation as to how my liberterian friend who favors something very close to laissez-faire capitalism is considered center-right while Obama is far-right. If pure capitalism is a far-right ideology, wouldn't he fit there?

Because his economic views probably seem to lie further right on a traditional L/R scale than they actually do if you plot his views on government intervention separately.  That said, I believe we've all already indicated that the actual plot positions that you get from taking their test are somewhat divergent from reality.  I don't necessarily think their test is perfectly crafted, but I do think a 2-axis plot makes much more sense that a traditional single axis.  Apparently you do not.

Quote
That's what I meant. By trying to seperate out social views, the Compass warps the definitions of right and left until they lose much of their common meaning. This means that it cannot be brought into any discussion using the traditional L/R scale or definitions of freedom and authoritarianism.

Well, yes?  That's the point - L/R scales are broken.  Your position on a L/R scale doesn't translate to a 2-axis scale because it measures different things.

If you have a fundamental problem with 2-axes versus one that's your prerogative.  I happen to like 2-axis plots for politics precisely because it gives a much more interesting analysis than simple L/R, because simple L/R scales don't actually work to compare one country to another because social views, government intervention, and economics are all confounded into a single plot point, and what takes overriding priority depends on the person doing the plotting more than any other factor (American 'conservatives' who everyone else considers far-right will always plot themselves closer to the middle, while plotting Democrats way out in left field, despite the fact that neither is supported by an actual measurement of policy.  In reality, pretty much all of the American political spectrum plots right-of-center when you use a global context.)
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]