if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls - Page 7
Register

User Tag List

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 301 to 324 of 324
  1. #301

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    About economic systems. One question Iíve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? Itís almosy certainly an economic system weíve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

    This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but itís nteresting to think about.

  2. #302

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    About socialism. I actually (personally) have no issues with socialism as long as I myself donít have to participate in it. For instance I have absolutely no problem with Jewish kibbutzim because theyíre free associations; the people in them *want* to be in them. And they donít want to extend it to anyone else. I would never do that myself, but hey if it works for you, go for it, man. Live and let live.

  3. #303

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    This is such a chaotic thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    About economic systems. One question I’ve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? It’s almosy certainly an economic system we’ve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

    This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but it’s nteresting to think about.
    I strongly doubt the next economic system involves obsolecence of companies: they have too much power. The only way I see this happening (and even then, it's highly unlikely) is if there is a massive worldwide uprising against them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    About socialism. I actually (personally) have no issues with socialism as long as I myself don’t have to participate in it. For instance I have absolutely no problem with Jewish kibbutzim because they’re free associations; the people in them *want* to be in them. And they don’t want to extend it to anyone else. I would never do that myself, but hey if it works for you, go for it, man. Live and let live.
    The idea of socialism is literally to extend it to everyone, though. Else, it becomes the principle of "capitalist insurance". If everyone were to say "oh, I don't have any disabilities! Why should I pay for people who do?", then the point of having a disability insurance would disappear.
    Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all...
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  4. #304

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Disagree, socialism should not be universal because socialists have to realize not everyone wants to participate in a socialist society, and wonít be productive (and very probably deeply unhappy) with one. On the one hand, when you have a socialist society that everyone wants to be a part of, those tend to be quite productive because the members of it willingly joined it. I mean, look at Jewish kibbutzim. Many of them are quite rich and some even work in the military field.

  5. #305

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Disagree, socialism should not be universal because socialists have to realize not everyone wants to participate in a socialist society, and won’t be productive (and very probably deeply unhappy) with one. On the one hand, when you have a socialist society that everyone wants to be a part of, those tend to be quite productive because the members of it willingly joined it. I mean, look at Jewish kibbutzim. Many of them are quite rich and some even work in the military field.
    Then put all the non-socialists in a semi-autonomous gulag run by them and let them get into bad positions and not be able to get out of these! Or more realistically and more seriously, have a referendum about it if it's that much of an issue for a large portion of the population, or just elect a party that will abolish socialist measures. Socialist measures cannot be half-assed: either you apply them fully or you just don't because you're throwing government's money and time down the sink due to lack of efficiency.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  6. #306

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Socialist measures should not come from the government because that means you give the government thebright to manage the economy and welfare, and the government tends mismanage those. Everything should be approached and dealt with in an individual basis, and not even a benevolent government is capable of taking into account individual problems or issues. Somethingbas widespread as government-run social security never could, anyways.

  7. #307

  8. #308

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Ngl the idea of a private entity running social security sounds really bad. The only thing close to private social security here is Superannuation, which is really fkn good but it's self-funded and inaccessible until retirement age (60)

  9. #309

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    How does a private company stay in business and ethically offer food, shelter, medical service to those that require it?
    Like private insurance companies do, although I wasnít necessarily talking about that. I was talking more about full-on socialism with collective ownership of production and redistributive or egalitarian income systems, such as youíd see in jewish collective farms.

  10. #310

  11. #311

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Poor people can't afford insurance lol. this is why the two method approach is good. Private for those who can and public for those who cannot.
    T h i s .

    ~~

    While the government does suck at managing the economy and welfare, private companies do, too! This is especially true about welfare, since the only thing stopping private companies from giving a shit service is the fear of scandals and of being dominated by other companies... which implies they don't also give a shit service. As shows the really horrible situation about insurance in the US, no national insurance system doesn't work so well, because private companies don't work so well when they have by far the biggest share of the population's needs. As for economy, there is necessary ingerence from the state in economy: pure economic liberalism led to the Great Depression for a reason. Plus, it's not like creating a national insurance system stops private companies from existing and from trying to offer a better service to those who can afford it. The way you say things makes it look like having a national insurance system is a direct road to a communist-style planified economy, which is absolutely false.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  12. #312

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I'm literally clarifying so I don't assume!!!!!
    The world may never know

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  13. #313

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    ok nerds, i can't believe im going to have to take on a serious character for the first time in this sewer of a site but i need to elaborate on this topic because saint peter hath declared me the next messiah.

    you wanna know why the cost of insurance is so damn high? because barely any competition exists in this field. a public + private combination ensures your insurance stays shit because 1) there is no incentive for the public service to do itself any better because public industries have virtually no competition, and because the public edition of "heathcare" exists, only existing private insurance (which are usually the big fucks) can maintain any standing. what this does is 1) limits choice and 2) people always say government should provide a basic level of care. well, what is the basic level??? what if the government doesn't cover say, chemotherapy? colonoscopies? aids treatment? in addition, healthcare is also goddamn expensive because increased regulation to healthcare logistics have 1) enacted a barrier to entry and 2) for existing corporations, allow quasi-monopolistic pricing and are forced to raise their prices because the time it takes for healthcare equipment to be approved is too damn high, and thus the costs have to be high in order to recuperate.

    this is the current argument undergoing any hybrid system and its -- government is never doing enough but government should provide healthcare to people, so the costs of government healthcare keeps rising and rising. obamacare hasn't solved the problem of healthcare at all. people's needs are unlimited and thus there is no such thing as a "government basis" for healthcare. a hybrid system wouldn't work, hasn't worked, and the evidence is the united states with the aberration that is the promise of "affordable care". I wonder if people know Sweden's social security is privatized, or that Switzerland has a decentralized insurance system, precisely because government, like everything else, always mismanages these processes because how the hell is a politician with a degree in history or law going to figure out the logistics of social security, or healthcare for the matter?? this is one of the biggest problems, where government begins to "budget" healthcare, which it shouldn't. give people what they need at that time. the difference between how private healthcare "budgets" healthcare is that private healthcare have to budget towards demand, something that is done MUCH MUCH faster by private choices. this is why LASIK is so easy and quick to get (in the U.S., at least), because LASIK is one of those things untouched by public malfeasance.

    this is the thing people keep misunderstanding about healthcare in the private sector. they HAVE to perform well. if they perform badly, then they will get 1) sued to death 2) shittalked to death and 3) deathed to death. but if the government performs badly then well we'll just increase our budget to fix that problem... and if that didn't fix it we'll just increase our budget again.

    the fact that government provides a baseline to begin with, and a pretty high and costly one at that to begin with, gets rid of choice. Sweden, UK have their "universal healthcare" models which still are burdened by bureaucratic inefficiency, and continually rising costs. the tax burden, by the way, is mainly on the poor. most of universal healthcare systems still affect the poor the most in society, and as the cost of healthcare rises, so will the burden on poor people. "taxing" rich people is a pipe dream typically and it only serves to reduce tax revenue more often than it raises it. the "middle class" is the group to which the most tax will be collected, virtually always. it works slightly better in Switzerland because the government only subsidizes the poor who cant afford it, whilst everyone else is mandated to purchase private. otherwise, their hands are off the table on healthcare and insurance.

    so you wanna know how to solve the insurance problem? get government's grabby little hands away from the whole shieza. really. they're not helping, in fact, they're only enacting higher walls for entry, while they are allowing themselves to perform like crap when it does. in no way can private insurance make someone wait for care because the person needing care is the customer, and they NEED customers. in no way can private insurance deny people with preexisting care, because someone else will steal that revenue if they choose to deny it. but no, government adds rules and exerts control over these industries thinking they can do good, but all it does is, in fact, ALLOW insurance to deny people with preexisting care because lo and behold, if you can cut costs, you will, and only by virtue of the government allowing you the environment to do such a thing.

    speaking of insurance, did you know switching to Geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

    yes, i wrote that shit so you could switch to Geico. Geico gets you the insurance savings you expect. Get an additional 15% credit on new auto, motorcycle, and RV policies for the full 6-month and 12-month insurance policy term.

    ass bandits

  14. #314

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Min wage in Australia is ~$39,197 a year, or $753 a week. $783 from that yearly income goes towards taxes for public health care. That equates to $15 a week of health insurance in the public sector. Min wage full time workers here are hardly impacted by the cost of public health care. We aren't even taxed for it until we earn $18,000. Then comes a surcharge for anyone earning over $90,000 and STILL are in the public healthcare system when they can easily afford private insurance actively enticing people to unclog the public sector. Also, the yearly amount for welfare recipients is ~$15,000. This is below the income threshold where citizens begin to pay tax towards public healthcare so they don't pay anything, yet they still receive it.

    Public healthcare can easily be funded and provided. The quality of the care is another debate but with my experience with public healthcare - it's fine and affordable. I have been on numerous different income stream rates and can atest to it personally. Yes there are wait times for non critical things, but if it's urgent you aren't going to be put on a wait list or be bankrupt.
    Last edited by rumox; September 26th, 2020 at 12:54 AM.

  15. #315

  16. #316

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    I really didnt like this quiz. Every 5th question made me cringe and wish I could throw a lot of context into the situation. For example:
    "Is oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments."
    How is there any difference when I believe I live in a Corporatocracy? Or at the very least some hybrid of a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. The oppression of the wealthy or corporation is one and the same when they control the government..
    This is how I felt for a huge amount of the questions. It asks deep questions with the limitations of shallow answers which just sucks.

    I get what its trying to do but there was also quite a few questions that felt loaded.

    download.png

    Those were my results for whatever thats worth.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  17. #317

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Min wage in Australia is ~$39,197 a year, or $753 a week. $783 from that yearly income goes towards taxes for public health care. That equates to $15 a week of health insurance in the public sector. Min wage full time workers here are hardly impacted by the cost of public health care. We aren't even taxed for it until we earn $18,000. Then comes a surcharge for anyone earning over $90,000 and STILL are in the public healthcare system when they can easily afford private insurance actively enticing people to unclog the public sector. Also, the yearly amount for welfare recipients is ~$15,000. This is below the income threshold where citizens begin to pay tax towards public healthcare so they don't pay anything, yet they still receive it.

    Public healthcare can easily be funded and provided. The quality of the care is another debate but with my experience with public healthcare - it's fine and affordable. I have been on numerous different income stream rates and can atest to it personally. Yes there are wait times for non critical things, but if it's urgent you aren't going to be put on a wait list or be bankrupt.
    One of the most significant things I think people confuse is the ideas of socialism vs subsidized capitalism.

    Yes- Socialist healthcare can work. -But-

    There is a HUGE difference from America pushing Insurance to subsidize capitalistic healthcare and an actual socialist system.

    I really hate how people confuse the two. Like we in america can just spread the cost around through insurance and subsidization and it will somehow some way magically equate to a socialist system while we simultaneously allow for capitalistic profits.

    Spreading the cost does not reduce the cost in any way. Socialist economy's are fundamentally different from capitalistic ones and subsidized capitalism is the least effective structure of healthcare I have herd of but its insanely advocated for because people do not understand how to tell the difference between a practice that supports spreading the burden of payment to hold unjustifiable price points with a total restructure of a healthcare system. They are not the same and I wish more people would advocate the difference.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  18. #318

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    subsidized capitalism is the least effective structure of healthcare I have herd
    I can't say I hold it as a paragon of an ideal healthcare system, but that's exactly how the Dutch healthcare system works, and it's very frequently ranked as the best in Europe on a number of measures.

  19. #319

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Also regarding the Nazis, they're extremely authoritarian and conservative socially, but economically I would say they're more center of right. Still quite capitalistic under the confines of a full-blown totalitarian state, mind you.

    But I maintain that it's a bizarre and nonsequitous point to bring up in most contexts because rarely are the economics of Nazi Germany discussed or relevant to a discussion. I believe that the reason many people bring it up is to try to muddy the waters and make it seem like leftism and Nazism are related, or to dissociate the atrocities of the Nazis from racism, social conservatism, and authoritarianism.

  20. #320

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    no, the reason people bring it up is because many prominent leftists supported the Nazi ideology. example: Bernard Shaw. also, I did not say they were leftist, I said they are hard to classify (which they are). I donít understand this insistence that they were right. They incorporated aspects of both sides of the spectrum. Like I said, even Hitler admitted to this.

  21. #321

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    ok nerds, i can't believe im going to have to take on a serious character for the first time in this sewer of a site but i need to elaborate on this topic because saint peter hath declared me the next messiah.

    you wanna know why the cost of insurance is so damn high? because barely any competition exists in this field. a public + private combination ensures your insurance stays shit because 1) there is no incentive for the public service to do itself any better because public industries have virtually no competition, and because the public edition of "heathcare" exists, only existing private insurance (which are usually the big fucks) can maintain any standing. what this does is 1) limits choice and 2) people always say government should provide a basic level of care. well, what is the basic level??? what if the government doesn't cover say, chemotherapy? colonoscopies? aids treatment? in addition, healthcare is also goddamn expensive because increased regulation to healthcare logistics have 1) enacted a barrier to entry and 2) for existing corporations, allow quasi-monopolistic pricing and are forced to raise their prices because the time it takes for healthcare equipment to be approved is too damn high, and thus the costs have to be high in order to recuperate.

    this is the current argument undergoing any hybrid system and its -- government is never doing enough but government should provide healthcare to people, so the costs of government healthcare keeps rising and rising. obamacare hasn't solved the problem of healthcare at all. people's needs are unlimited and thus there is no such thing as a "government basis" for healthcare. a hybrid system wouldn't work, hasn't worked, and the evidence is the united states with the aberration that is the promise of "affordable care". I wonder if people know Sweden's social security is privatized, or that Switzerland has a decentralized insurance system, precisely because government, like everything else, always mismanages these processes because how the hell is a politician with a degree in history or law going to figure out the logistics of social security, or healthcare for the matter?? this is one of the biggest problems, where government begins to "budget" healthcare, which it shouldn't. give people what they need at that time. the difference between how private healthcare "budgets" healthcare is that private healthcare have to budget towards demand, something that is done MUCH MUCH faster by private choices. this is why LASIK is so easy and quick to get (in the U.S., at least), because LASIK is one of those things untouched by public malfeasance.

    this is the thing people keep misunderstanding about healthcare in the private sector. they HAVE to perform well. if they perform badly, then they will get 1) sued to death 2) shittalked to death and 3) deathed to death. but if the government performs badly then well we'll just increase our budget to fix that problem... and if that didn't fix it we'll just increase our budget again.

    the fact that government provides a baseline to begin with, and a pretty high and costly one at that to begin with, gets rid of choice. Sweden, UK have their "universal healthcare" models which still are burdened by bureaucratic inefficiency, and continually rising costs. the tax burden, by the way, is mainly on the poor. most of universal healthcare systems still affect the poor the most in society, and as the cost of healthcare rises, so will the burden on poor people. "taxing" rich people is a pipe dream typically and it only serves to reduce tax revenue more often than it raises it. the "middle class" is the group to which the most tax will be collected, virtually always. it works slightly better in Switzerland because the government only subsidizes the poor who cant afford it, whilst everyone else is mandated to purchase private. otherwise, their hands are off the table on healthcare and insurance.

    so you wanna know how to solve the insurance problem? get government's grabby little hands away from the whole shieza. really. they're not helping, in fact, they're only enacting higher walls for entry, while they are allowing themselves to perform like crap when it does. in no way can private insurance make someone wait for care because the person needing care is the customer, and they NEED customers. in no way can private insurance deny people with preexisting care, because someone else will steal that revenue if they choose to deny it. but no, government adds rules and exerts control over these industries thinking they can do good, but all it does is, in fact, ALLOW insurance to deny people with preexisting care because lo and behold, if you can cut costs, you will, and only by virtue of the government allowing you the environment to do such a thing.

    speaking of insurance, did you know switching to Geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

    yes, i wrote that shit so you could switch to Geico. Geico gets you the insurance savings you expect. Get an additional 15% credit on new auto, motorcycle, and RV policies for the full 6-month and 12-month insurance policy term.

    ass bandits
    I feel your analysis fails to account for the full nature of competition.

    Healthy competition fundamentally starts at the consumer. Consumers (en masse) need to assess their options in an informed, objective manner, and make the correct decision for health insurance companies to be incentivized to cut costs and offer a higher quality service. In practice, most the consumers don't understand their insurance very well, and the insurance companies devote their time to obfuscating their own costs and coverage. So, in practice, it's not clear to the health insurance companies that simply cutting their costs will make them more competitive - the consumer may not even recognise the benefit they're receiving.

    Another prerequisite of competition is that it needs to be more profitable for companies to compete rather than just to work together. It's not always in the interests of health insurance companies to gut eachother's profits plummeting costs. It may be (and often is) more profitable for all the companies to agree to maintain some exorbitant cost. Healthcare is unique in the sense that the notion of supply and demand is rather intrinsically broken. If all the apples at the supermarket are gone off, you won't buy an apple. If all the video games this year look lame, you won't buy a video game. However, if you're sick, you still need care. So, if the health insurance companies all agree to raise their costs together, they know your only option is to suck it up. What usually fixes issues like this is a new competitor entering the market and offering cheaper costs. But hospitals generally do exclusive contracts with one or a select few health insurance companies. Entering the market requires you to out-bid all these massive, well-established companies for contracts at these hospitals. In short, it'd be such an expensive endeavor that new entrants into the market have much more to profit from just working with the powers that be rather than trying to overthrow an entire system.

    The last thing about competition is that it doesn't always benefit the consumer. There are fundamentally two ways of making your product more attractive to the consumer. You can raise the value of your own product, or sabotage someone else's (indirectly). Why compete with this small insurance company when you can simply buy up exclusive contracts with all the hospitals in their area? This is a less relevant point since US companies are now forced to take people with preexisting conditions, but preexisting conditions presented another example of competition not benefitting the consumer - accepting these consumers would only raise costs, and make the company less competitive. This is also an example of how profit incentive doesn't always maximize coverage, as you imply in your second-to-last paragraph. Profit incentive is a curious thing, and in some sectors can produce very perverse outcomes. I'm reminded of that HIV treatment that got its price hiked by 10x a few years back in the US - an objectively profitable move if at least 10% of HIV patients continue to pay for the drug, irrespective of whether the rest don't survive. Or the absurd cost of insulin. Though I digress.

    This doesn't really link into the above anywhere, but it's important to remember that the US congress sadly doesn't just have a corruption issue, but a corruption culture. Members of congress receive between hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars from health insurance companies, and then will take large sums from other key players. They rely on this money to win reelection. Members of congress that propose or even support bills that piss off the health insurance companies guarantee that those hundreds of thousands will be used against them during the next election. This is also why many regulations that exist appear only to further limit external competition. What you guys need is full on state-funded healthcare. It wouldn't be great, but anything else would inevitably be worse due to the pharmaceutical company's and health insurance company's power.
    Last edited by yzb25; September 26th, 2020 at 04:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  22. #322

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    A prominent leftist supporting a government does not make that government leftist.

    They are not hard to classify. They rampantly privatized state industries, were opposed to social welfare on principle, and broke up trade unions. Their economic policy is further right than the majority of world governments today.

    Also their entire social welfare system was based on private donations, while they cut income taxes.
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; September 26th, 2020 at 04:32 AM.

  23. #323

  24. #324

    Re: if you do not do the full version of this political quiz and post the results, you have no balls

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    they privatized them and strictly controlled them, lol.
    idk, itís funny Iím the only one being debated with when someone left-leaning actually agrees with me that they controlled the economy (@Marshmallow Marshall)
    How did they strictly control them?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •