Political Trivia - Left versus Right

[Textile Guy]

I remember a similar discussion as a younger adult - as we do - chatting politics.
The ANC had just been un banned, and being an ex SADF troep, I had a view on things.

An old Prof stepped in, and asked - where is the political centre? He suggested, that the "center" at the time was seen as the NP, the ANC being left, and the CP being right. Everyone else fell somewhere in between that gamut.

Of course, when the ANC won the election - they became somewhat of the middle ground .... In effect the whole political landscape had shifted left.
So much so, that today, we joke about reverse racism and the like, but it has alot of basis in truth.

Back in the day, the DA or the PFP as they were, were like the EFF. Rabble rousers .... today they are the hope for a better future.

Of course, the further left or right you go from the accepted center, the more authoritarian things become, because there are less freedoms for "what is acceptable".

Maybe - left vs right comes down to - whats it in for me vs what in it for them, and how strongly do I support the belief in that comparison?

 

[Urist]

I remember a similar discussion as a younger adult - as we do - chatting politics.
The ANC had just been un banned, and being an ex SADF troep, I had a view on things.

An old Prof stepped in, and asked - where is the political centre? He suggested, that the "center" at the time was seen as the NP, the ANC being left, and the CP being right. Everyone else fell somewhere in between that gamut.

Of course, when the ANC won the election - they became somewhat of the middle ground .... In effect the whole political landscape had shifted left.
So much so, that today, we joke about reverse racism and the like, but it has alot of basis in truth.

Back in the day, the DA or the PFP as they were, were like the EFF. Rabble rousers .... today they are the hope for a better future.

Of course, the further left or right you go from the accepted center, the more authoritarian things become, because there are less freedoms for "what is acceptable".

Maybe - left vs right comes down to - whats it in for me vs what in it for them, and how strongly do I support the belief in that comparison?

It seems like the political center is where everyone thinks they are. Everyone who is relatively moderate in their belief that the world is basically working, which is most of us.
Reminds me of the joke "I`m against a women's right to choose, but I also like killing babies",
I don't think anyone thinks their evil... well at least 99% of people. @satanboy excluded

 

[[)roi(]]

It seems like the political center is where everyone thinks they are. Everyone who is relatively moderate in their belief that the world is basically working, which is most of us.
Reminds me of the joke "I`m against a women's right to choose, but I also like killing babies",
I don't think anyone thinks their evil... well at least 99% of people. @satanboy excluded

The gray area between left / right is purposefully so.
It's proof of how effect the propaganda effort has been; it's by design more gray, and I'll prove some of it to you, starting tomorrow.

 

[Urist]

The gray area between left / right is purposefully so.
It's proof of how effect the propaganda effort has been; it's by design more gray, and I'll prove some of it to you, starting tomorrow.

cool, i`ll prepare my tinfoil hat, but as soon as you mention jewish conspiracy, i`m out .
Read about this asshole in the meantime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

 

[NObanana4you]

Today, I'm leaning toward wiping the socialism, anti white brigade off this Planet.

Dont touch me on my weapons studio!

 

[[)roi(]]

cool, i`ll prepare my tinfoil hat, but as soon as you mention jewish conspiracy, i`m out .
Read about this asshole in the meantime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Nope no Jewish conspiracy + I'm pro Israel.

I won't be singling out a specific person when it comes to the propaganda; because this is more a concerted effort to rebrand something innately rotten (on which a majority agree) and flip the guilt.

I will show you proof of the propaganda and we can postulate on who if any is the leading driving force is behind this propaganda.

 

[LD50]

That's a great starting point; sounds like we're on a similar page.

I like to separate ideologies from traits; ideologies are IMO more left/ right, whereas traits like capitalism are for the most part flexible and can co-exist on both sides.

Yeah but I feel capitalism should have elements of socialism in coexistence. While the rich get richer we need to take better care of the poor in order to create a richer & healthier society who can contribute to an economy. There are various avenues to redistribute "SOME" of the wealth ( pls take note ).

 

[Textile Guy]

Yeah but I feel capitalism should have elements of socialism in coexistence. While the rich get richer we need to take better care of the poor in order to create a richer & healthier society who can contribute to an economy. There are various avenues to redistribute "SOME" of the wealth ( pls take note ).

Yeah, makes total sense.

Capitalists need to invest in people to to become the next consumer to feed the capitalist .....

 

[LD50]

Yeah, makes total sense.

Capitalists need to invest in people to to become the next consumer to feed the capitalist .....

Yes, you get it. I liked the way you put it business terms. Could make sense to the capitalist right
High hopes

 

[EmJay]

View attachment 3446
this makes more sense to me. would like to believe i`m down there in the vast sea, guess it depends on Where you're standing, though i think most of us can agree that it's the tops and bottoms of the quadrant that's the problem.

I used to believe in this graph. But it really is not relevant as most people will fall in varying quadrants within this graph depending on the actual topic which we are discussing. I think a better gauge of a person's positions would be a summary of core beliefs.

Like so:

Mine are pretty simple: small and limited government (but keeping some environmental, consumer and fair competition protections in place), individualism, complete freedom of speech (except incitement of violence), equality (not equity)/equal opportunity (not equal outcomes), limited abortion rights (up to 12 weeks), the concept of limited positive rights (obviously there is a lot of nuance here), controlled immigration, limited socialism and pro-family.

 

[[)roi(]]

Yeah but I feel capitalism should have elements of socialism in coexistence. While the rich get richer we need to take better care of the poor in order to create a richer & healthier society who can contribute to an economy. There are various avenues to redistribute "SOME" of the wealth ( pls take note ).

That's called taxes. Ideologies that ignore the Laffer Curve are doomed to fail; those that don't excel.
I.e. "A rising tide floats all boats"

I'll let you guess which side tends to over tax; often to the point of killing economic growth and exacerbating the situation for the poor. Real empowerment is a job and not a dependency on "free" fishes.

 

[EmJay]

That's called taxes. Ideologies that ignore the Laffer Curve are doomed to fail; those that don't excel.
I.e. "A rising tide floats all boats"

I'll let you guess which side tends to over tax; often to the point of killing economic growth and exacerbating the situation for the poor. Real empowerment is a job and not a dependency on "free" fishes.

The Laffer Curve is nonsense. Economists are saying a top taxation rate is as high as 73%. Can you imagine? 45% is already way too high. Government should not be taking half of my labour.

 

[[)roi(]]

The Laffer Curve is nonsense. Economists are saying a top taxation rate is as high as 73%. Can you imagine? 45% is already way too high. Government should not be taking half of my labour.

How so? Where do you derive the fixed 73% from? The % is not fixed globally; it varies based on the robustness of the economy e.g. Nordic countries have very low corporate taxation and high personal taxes I.e. the people pay for their social benefits and corporates are not burdened with that.

The US as example took direction from Arthur Laffer and dropped the corporate tax to around 20%; similarly federal personal tax, although their goal was to drop that even lower over time.. Their final taxation situation however varies by state, with some states overtaxing to the point that businesses & people are actively moving to lower taxation states.

The curve principle simply states that there is a theoretical maximum taxation tolerance after which any further tax increases will result in diminished tax revenue. The health of an economy is a big part in this determination, but as both the Nordic and US economies have proven, low corporate rates result in good economic growth including investment and in turn reduced unemployment. Similarly lower personal income taxation results in greater consumer expenditure, etc. I.e. the rising tide that floats al boats.

 

[EmJay]

How so? Where do you derive the fixed 75% from? The % is not fixed globally; it varies based on the robustness of the economy e.g. Nordic countries have very low corporate taxation and high personal taxes I.e. the people pay for their social benefits and corporates are not burdened with that.

The US as example took direction from Arthur Laffer and dropped the corporate tax to around 20%; similarly federal personal tax, although their goal was to drop that even lower over time.. Their final taxation situation however varies by state, with some states overtaxing to the point that businesses & people are actively moving to lower taxation states.

The curve principle simply states that there is a theoretical maximum taxation tolerance after which any further tax increases will result in diminished tax revenue. The health of an economy is a big part in this determination, but as both the Nordic and US economies have proven, low corporate rates result in good economic growth including investment and in turn reduced unemployment. Similarly lower personal income taxation results in greater consumer expenditure, etc. I.e. the rising tide that floats al boats.

I have seen a few theoretical maximums bandied about. But here is one link:

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.[4] A 2012 study found a consensus among leading economists that reducing the US federal income tax rate would raise GDP, but not by enough to offset the losses from a lower tax rate and therefore would not raise annual total tax revenue over the course of 5 years.[5] According to a 2012 study, "the U.S. marginal top [tax] rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve."[6]

Laffer curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

SA's theorized Laffer Curve is around 18%.

2.2 An optimal tax to GDP ratio in SA – literature review Schoeman et al. (2009) researched the optimum rate of tax revenue policies what would facilitate the full growth potential of the SA economy between the period 1960 and 2007. They concluded that the results indicate that the actual average tax burden exceeds its optimum level and that the authorities will have to consider adjusting tax policy accordingly in order to improve the growth performance of the economy. According to their model, the optimum tax to GDP ratio for the SA economy is 18.5%. However, it was already 26% in 2007 and South African Reserve Bank (SARB) data shows that it increased to over 28% in 2018.

Even for rich countries, 70% is a fat no imo.

 

[Vorastra]

Mine are pretty simple: small and limited government (but keeping some environmental, consumer and fair competition protections in place), individualism, complete freedom of speech (except incitement of violence), equality (not equity)/equal opportunity (not equal outcomes), limited abortion rights (up to 12 weeks), the concept of limited positive rights (obviously there is a lot of nuance here), controlled immigration, limited socialism and pro-family.

I was about to say how I agree with everything you say, then I saw your name. Once again, Emjay making sense and being level-headed.

 

[EmJay]

I was about to say how I agree with everything you say, then I saw your name. Once again, Emjay making sense and being level-headed.

Hello.

*waves*

 

[Urist]

I believe business is mostly inherently non-prejudiced, and for selfish reasons should and will take care of their macro as well as their micro environments. Regulation is necessary where their bottom line might be to the detriment of society around them, like dumping of waste in rivers. The onus is also on the consumer to support ethical business. Where i'm mostly at odds with government is their attempts at social engineering and to moral police. Things like gay marriage should not even be an issue.
Unfortunately in South Africa we're not even dealing with the nitty gritty, it's a shit-show of populist race based politics... maybe that's why homogeneous nation states tend to do better... their politicians don't get to pull that bullshit.

 

[[)roi(]]

I have seen a few theoretical maximums bandied about. But here is one link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Palgrave_Dictionary_of_Economics

Laffer curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

SA's theorized Laffer Curve is around 18%.



Even for rich countries, 70% is a fat no imo.

As I said you are misinterpreting the Laffer Curve. US is the richest country and their corporate rates are around 20% ignoring of course the democrat states with their high state taxes, similarly personal income tax.

I also told you that Arthur Laffer was involved in definng these rates; the economist after which the Laffer Curve is named; hence he should know far better than any second hand source, including Wikipedia.

Similarly Nordic countries have low corporate taxation; the difference between them and the US is on the personal taxation side, which while offering more tax revenue for services has directly retardedd the liquidity wrt consumer spend, which impacts the supply side of their economy. That's a choice their citizens made -- personally I prefer the US model where I get to choose how I spend more of my money.

SA is a perfect example of a country not even considering the Laffer Curve or supply side economics; when they need more taxes, their solution is to increase taxes and thereby further stifle an already depressed economy, coupled with over burdensome regulations and corruption -- it's why SA's growth has been consistently declining and why no inroads are being made into reducing unemployment.

 

[[)roi(]]

I believe business is mostly inherently non-prejudiced, and for selfish reasons should and will take care of their macro as well as their micro environments. Regulation is necessary where their bottom line might be to the detriment of society around them, like dumping of waste in rivers. The onus is also on the consumer to support ethical business. Where i'm mostly at odds with government is their attempts at social engineering and to moral police. Things like gay marriage should not even be an issue.
Unfortunately in South Africa we're not even dealing with the nitty gritty, it's a shit-show of populist race based politics... maybe that's why homogeneous nation states tend to do better... their politicians don't get to pull that bullshit.

You have two models:

• Big government that regulates everything and provides many services; naturally that requires a lot of taxes.
• Small government that only provides a few essential services, protects free speech, and guarantees civil liberties under the rule of law. The rest is left up to the private sector to fulfil. Naturally taxes are substantially lower.

Which model you prefer is very much tied to a choice between left & right.

I prefer the second option, which has the smallest government possible, least amount of taxes, least amount of regulation to ensure our civil liberties under rule of law, free speech and the freedom to bear arms - which South Africa does not have.

 

[Urist]

You have two models:

• Big government that regulates everything and provides many services; naturally that requires a lot of taxes.
• Small government that only provides a few essential services, protects free speech, and guarantees civil liberties under the rule of law. The rest is left up to the private sector to fulfil. Naturally taxes are substantially lower.

Which model you prefer is very much tied to a choice between left & right.

I prefer the second option, which has the smallest government possible, least amount of taxes, least amount of regulation to ensure our civil liberties under rule of law, free speech and the freedom to bear arms - which South Africa does not have.

yup, 2, but too far dadaway right and you get to insane shit like ayn rand.