What is your "Social Attitude"? Here's a test to find out

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

No. Socialism is good for keeping the people of prosperous nations fat and happy. It is not a workable solution for bringing nations/regions out of poverty.

I don't know... weren't the scandinavian nations pretty poor in the 50s and 60s? Socialism seemed to make them much richer as the years went on...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Political Values

Radicalism 39
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 59.375

These scores indicate that you are a moderate conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a sincere clergyman. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with several strong opinions.

this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person.

Interesting. Social attitudes affect bowel movements.

[decocker 7,198]

These scores indicate that you are a moderate conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a sincere clergyman.

better sincere clergyman than cop. imo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is a "regular person"? FFS.

Good bowel health.

[Karee 4,189]

sincere clergyman

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[decocker 7,198]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

generally speaking yes. but it is possible..

[mota bhai 2,675]

I don't know... weren't the scandinavian nations pretty poor in the 50s and 60s? Socialism seemed to make them much richer as the years went on...

Not third world level poor.

Socialism works well once a nation is at a certain level. It does nothing for nations at the very bottom. Socialism has failed Africa, it has failed India, it has failed China. What's working in those parts is unbridled capitalism.

Edited August 21, 2013 by amriki bhai

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Not third world level poor.

Socialism works well once a nation is at a certain level. It does nothing for nations at the very bottom. Socialism has failed Africa, it has failed India, it has failed China. What's working in those parts is unbridled capitalism.

It's working?

When will it blow up in their faces?

I'm not really socialist, mostly because I haven't lived with and don't have familiarity with it, so I am not really suggesting that India should go socialist. However, unbridled capitalism just makes the richer rich and the poorer poor. Without oversight it rewards criminals and cheaters at the expense of others. Corruption and lack of innovation are helping keep those countries down, imo.

[mota bhai 2,675]

It's working?

When will it blow up in their faces?

I'm not really socialist, mostly because I haven't lived with and don't have familiarity with it, so I am not really suggesting that India should go socialist. However, unbridled capitalism just makes the richer rich and the poorer poor. Without oversight it rewards criminals and cheaters at the expense of others. Corruption and lack of innovation are helping keep those countries down, imo.

It's doing a better job than socialism did. India was socialist until the early 90s. Every visible improvement in people's lives has been since then. 24 hour electric supply, more hours of water supply, better roads, more universities, more private sector jobs.

Socialism fails nations at the bottom but does have a good track record in nations that are no longer stuck in poverty.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's doing a better job than socialism did. India was socialist until the early 90s. Every visible improvement in people's lives has been since then. 24 hour electric supply, more hours of water supply, better roads, more universities, more private sector jobs.

Socialism fails nations at the bottom but does have a good track record in nations that are no longer stuck in poverty.

That is because socialism is expensive. Capitalism is the fastest way to build wealth.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Political Values

Radicalism 41.75

Socialism 31.25

Tenderness 56.25

These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.

To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with several strong opinions.

This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Finally, another regular person!

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

It's doing a better job than socialism did. India was socialist until the early 90s. Every visible improvement in people's lives has been since then. 24 hour electric supply, more hours of water supply, better roads, more universities, more private sector jobs.

Socialism fails nations at the bottom but does have a good track record in nations that are no longer stuck in poverty.

So it seems the difference is in the infrastructure in place, like the types of available jobs, the quality of education, etc. If these things aren't strong then you say socialism can't work. What do you think about the possibility of a poor nation setting up an ambitious structure from the get-go instead of just socializing the junk they already have? What about something like the CCC or the WPA in America in the 30s for instance? Could a country pay people to go build better sewer pipes and roads to collectively improve their country, thereby creating a better reality?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So it seems the difference is in the infrastructure in place, like the types of available jobs, the quality of education, etc. If these things aren't strong then you say socialism can't work. What do you think about the possibility of a poor nation setting up an ambitious structure from the get-go instead of just socializing the junk they already have? What about something like the CCC or the WPA in America in the 30s for instance? Could a country pay people to go build better sewer pipes and roads to collectively improve their country, thereby creating a better reality?

FDR tried that in the New Deal, mortgaging the future. WWII is what put the nation to work, where they seized all the profits, and put the money back into the war effort. Life in the US sucked even more than it did during the depression - people were working, but rationing and shortages, combined with fixed wages kept people from enjoying the fruits of their labor. It really wasn't until JFK cut taxes on capital gains that the economy really started taking off.

Edited August 21, 2013 by The Patriot

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

But people working to create a better future, later cashing in on that vision of an improved nation is certainly better than people not working and relying on soup kitchens to eat, no?

Rations and shortages weren't due to the WPA.

Cut taxes on capital gains? Sounds like trickle-down economics.