The Political Compass

[Edric O]

Well, you're confused because you forgot the distinction between what I personally identified with, a Libertarian Right ideology, and where the Political Compass test placed me, on the Libertarian Left -- with coordinates that placed me in the middle of the Social Democrat sphere. After hearing your description of it, it's an ideology that I am not uncomfortable with, that, in fact, I wouldn't mind living under. Since more or less I do live in one (save for some differences the USA has with most Social Democrat-societies), that's a good thing.

The United States is not generally considered a social democratic society; in fact it is probably the least social democratic of any developed Western country. This is mainly because the US lacks a universal health care system and because all of its major utilities and public services are owned by private corporations rather than by the state. Social democratic countries are places like Scandinavia, as well as Germany, France and others on the European continent. Britain was certainly social democratic before 1979, but not any more. Now it is liberal, like the US. The United States is (and has always been) a liberal country - in fact in many ways it is the very model of liberalism for the rest of the world, just like Sweden is the model of social democracy (and Russia is increasingly becoming the model of conservatism).

I could venture to say that a "liberal" in the international sense can be defined as a person who wants his country to become more like the United States.

But going back to your views, I understand now what you were saying. You meant that social democracy is within the realm of what you would consider acceptable policy, though it is not your preferred choice.

The Political Compass tends to compute your score based on your ends rather than the means you wish to employ in order to achieve them. So if you believe that an egalitarian society is desirable, you will score on the left, even if you disagree with the typical left-wing methods for creating such a society.

However, that does not necessarily mean I am a Social Democrat. I may believe that some things are good that Social Democrats might disagree with... such as laissez faire capitalism. Though I do agree with the majority of their reasoning. And yes, I believe that "allocation of resources" includes such things as public utilities, natural monopolies and health care. If people have an incentive to provide high-quality services in these sectors, both at the work and management levels, then society benefits as a whole from not only the provision of these services, but also the wages made by workers and managers in the firms that provide them. Though in Britain, in such things as the NHS and British Rail, we've seen some poor examples of privatization, I think that the principle is sound in theory, as so many private firms manage to prosper and provide goods and services to people who would otherwise be without them.

I once read that the difference between a pragmatic socialist and a pragmatic capitalist is that the pragmatic socialist believes resources should be allocated by a democratic planning institution unless there is a good reason why they should be allocated otherwise, while a pragmatic capitalist believes resources should be allocated by the market unless there is a good reason why they should be allocated otherwise. (and to that I would add that an ideological capitalist is a person who believes that resources should always be allocated by the market, consequences be damned)

You sound like a pragmatic capitalist, so I will argue that there are good reasons why most resources should be allocated by non-market mechanisms. To begin with, the fundamental problem with the market mechanism, even in its ideal form, is that the same medium (money) is used to transport information about people's wishes and to give rewards. You earn money, and then you use that money to make your preferences known in the market. The degree to which your preferences matter in the market - your "demanding power", so to speak - depends on how much money you have. So the desires of the rich count for more - much more - than the desires of the poor.

Another fundamental problem with the market is that it very often puts individuals in a Prisoner's Dilemma type of situation. How often do you end up buying something just because you know other people will also buy the same thing and you must keep up with them for whatever reason? Microsoft's entire Windows marketing strategy is based on putting people in that situation. The market inhibits collective decision-making. Why is the number of people who vote for government-enforced environmental standards so much greater than the number of people who would voluntarily adhere to those standards in the absence of government enforcement? Because individuals will not limit their own pollution if they feel their neighbors could get away with not limiting theirs. Similar situations arise in health care, education, and public services in general.

Those are problems that plague even an ideal market. Real markets suffer from unequal information, imperfect competition, price discrimination, monopolies, oligopolies, and all those other wonderful things that concentrate power in the hands of the owners of capital.

You say that people should have an incentive to provide high-quality services. But you should ask yourself if the market is necessary for such incentives, if real markets do in fact provide such incentives, and if these incentives are worth the opportunity cost. We could presumably have extraordinarily good doctors if we paid every doctor $1 million per week, but the question is if that $1 million would not be better used elsewhere.

Finally, you say that private firms manage to provide goods and services to people who would otherwise be without them. What do you mean by "otherwise?" Do you mean "in the absence of the particular individual firm I am talking about," or do you mean "in the absence of an economic system based on private firms?" Of course, by definition, a private firm always provides a service that would no longer exist if that firm vanished tomorrow. But that does not mean that there isn't a better, non-private way of providing the same service.

[Anathema]

Ah, so the social axis is more important to you than the economic axis. For me it is the precise opposite: I believe economic issues are by far the most important issues in politics, because (a) they affect everyone, whereas social issues usually affect only specific interest groups, (b) economic issues are a matter of life and death - whether you can get a good education, whether you can get health care, and whether you can put food on the table, and © as a Marxist I believe that economic interests are the driving force of society.

Regarding your statement about market forces: Have you considered the fact that, although the demand side reflects everyone's wishes, it does not reflect everyone's wishes equally? Your influence on the demand side depends on your willingness and ability to pay. Those who are able to pay more have a greater influence - their wishes count more than the wishes of those who have a lesser ability to pay. If everyone had an equal amount of money, then the market would accurately reflect society's wishes. But of course such a thing is impossible in a market economy. The greater the inequality in wealth, the greater the gap between market demand and the aggregate wishes of society.

Hmm, where to start.

I'm a moderate liberal first, and only a "capitalist" because of it. Moderate because I do believe that the government has a responsibility to make proper education available to everybody, but still liberal because I believe that everybody who has had the benefit of a good education should be trusted and allowed to take care of himself in all respects, including finance.

I don't think that everybody should have the same level of wealth. In such a system, in theory people should realize that if they work hard there will be more than enough for everyone, but in practice just about everybody has the potential to be a freerider. Therefore I think it's vital that an economy rewards effort. Additionally I don't think it's only fair that people who provide more or more valuable services get to spend a little more.

Of course, in reality people get screwed over all the time, getting sacked or denied a well-earned promotion because their employer or supervisor doesn't like them. Society also has a responsibility to support those willing to work, but unable to. The other side of the coin is that they shouldn't burden society longer than needed, that they should also put some effort in getting work again.

That's why I support free market policies, albeit with some "small" touches added to it to remove the worst flaws that occur in practice.

The reason that I think that transparent and responsive politics are more important...well, that basicly boils down to a dislike of clientelism and lobbying. I'd rather live under a social-democratic government who I can watch and criticize than under a pro-business regime whose doings I barely have an idea of.

[Edric O]

Well, I see what makes you a moderate, but you only sound very slightly liberal. Everything you said above would fit perfectly well not only with liberalism, but also with conservatism, populism and social democracy. Indeed, it may even fit with the views of some socialists.

Most ideologies could agree with the general statement that people "should be trusted and allowed to take care of themselves in all respects," though they may disagree about the kind of social and economic framework in which this is supposed to happen. Life is a game with rules. Most ideologies would agree that people should be allowed to play the game however they see fit within the given rules, though they may strongly disagree about the rules. Liberal rules are not necessarily less restrictive than socialist rules.

You don't think that everybody should have the same level of wealth, but neither do social democrats or even socialists. Socialism does not propose to eliminate inequalities of wealth completely; it only proposes to reduce them dramatically. Social democrats want to reduce them a little bit - your statement that people who provide more valuable services should get to spend "a little more" sounds more like social democracy than liberalism. A liberal would say "a lot more." A socialist would argue that since an individual has no control over the number of other individuals with the same skills, he should not be rewarded for having rare skills or punished for having common skills.

Both socialists and social democrats agree that the economy should reward effort; however, socialists do not believe that the market can accurately measure effort and therefore they do not agree with the kinds of rewards provided by the market. Market capitalism often gives enormous amounts of money to people who do very little work, while working class people who put a lot of effort into their jobs get pitifully low wages.

Your desire for transparent and responsive politics is also compatible with a large variety of ideologies, though it tends to exclude the more authoritarian versions of conservatism and populism.

[Anathema]

Well, I'm primarily arguing from the perspective of my own country. I would be satisfied with (mostly) maintaining the status quo; but the parties on the economic left continously advocate further levelling of income and deprivatisation. Even to maintain what is now I would have to vote liberal to provide a counterweight.

About "earning a little more", you're reading more in it than I intended. For example over here people continously harp over the huge wages that CEO's or members of a board of directors earn. Personally I'm only bothered when CEO's are given bonuses and parting payments while they in fact have performed horroribly. I view these as imperfections in the system. Yet I don't think a perfect system is possible, so I shrug it off.

Regarding your statement about market forces: Have you considered the fact that' date=' although the demand side reflects everyone's wishes, it does not reflect everyone's wishes equally? Your influence on the demand side depends on your willingness and ability to pay.[/color']

Socialism does not propose to eliminate inequalities of wealth completely; it only proposes to reduce them dramatically.

I think that the essences of these two statements are hard to reconcile. Suppose that I work either very hard' date=' or by ability perform my work better and thus get rewarded with more money. Assuming that I can spend this money anyway I want, doesn't that mean that my wishes have more effect?[/color']

[Edric O]

Well, I'm primarily arguing from the perspective of my own country. I would be satisfied with (mostly) maintaining the status quo; but the parties on the economic left continously advocate further levelling of income and deprivatisation. Even to maintain what is now I would have to vote liberal to provide a counterweight.

That seems highly unusual, since the global trend is towards more privatisation, not less. I find it difficult to believe that the Netherlands evaded this trend. Aren't there more privatised services today than, say, 20 years ago?

About "earning a little more", you're reading more in it than I intended. For example over here people continously harp over the huge wages that CEO's or members of a board of directors earn. Personally I'm only bothered when CEO's are given bonuses and parting payments while they in fact have performed horroribly. I view these as imperfections in the system. Yet I don't think a perfect system is possible, so I shrug it off.

Even if you don't believe a perfect system is possible, don't you agree that it would be possible and desirable to improve the current system, for example by removing those CEO bonuses? Also, if you don't see the problem with CEOs and directors being paid immense sums of money that could not possibly reflect the actual amount of work they do, what is your justification for inequality and rewards? Aren't rewards supposed to be proportional to effort in a just society?

I think that the essences of these two statements are hard to reconcile. Suppose that I work either very hard, or by ability perform my work better and thus get rewarded with more money. Assuming that I can spend this money anyway I want, doesn't that mean that my wishes have more effect?

In a market economy, yes. But in a planned economy, it is possible to separate the reward function of money from the information-bearing function of money. Or rather, it is possible to keep money only as a reward, but use some other, more democratic system to determine people's wishes. It is also possible to simply make wealth inequality smaller and thus reduce the distortions of the demand function cased by some people having more demand-power than others.

[Anathema]

That seems highly unusual' date=' since the global trend is towards more privatisation, not less. I find it difficult to believe that the Netherlands evaded this trend. Aren't there more privatised services today than, say, 20 years ago?[/quote']

Well, 2 to 3 decades ago there was a collective awareness (the Labour party included) that if the welfare state was to be preserved at all, it would need some redrawn: public services would have to be decentralized or even privatised, and deregulation across the board. Anno 2008 a lot of changes have already been made and the economy is doing fairly well; as a consequense the Labour party in particular is pausing to wonder if they're not better able to gather votes by falling back to their old formulas.

Even if you don't believe a perfect system is possible' date=' don't you agree that it would be possible and desirable to improve the current system, for example by removing those CEO bonuses? Also, if you don't see the problem with CEOs and directors being paid immense sums of money that could not possibly reflect the actual amount of work they do, what is your justification for inequality and rewards? Aren't rewards supposed to be proportional to effort in a just society?[/quote']

Well CEO salaries and bonuses have been the subject of debate for several years now; and since 2 years (I think) we now have a "corporate governance code". It's fairly elaborate, though it's not absolutely binding. Nevertheless, a few weeks ago the shareholders of Philips and those of several other companies voted against a salary raise for their CEO's for the first time since decades.

In a market economy' date=' yes. But in a planned economy, it is possible to separate the reward function of money from the information-bearing function of money. Or rather, it is possible to keep money only as a reward, but use some other, more democratic system to determine people's wishes.[/quote']

To be honest I'm not following you here. Suppose that after a decade of hard work and saving every penny I can spare, would I be able to buy a sailboat? Would such a product even exist in such an economy, since it has abandoned the mechanism that determines how many of them should be produced?

Since the economy is entirely subject to the collective will, what's to stop people from chosing to slack and simply vote for fixed wages?

(btw, have you by any chance heard or read what's going on with Alitalia?)