User Tag List

View Poll Results: Social issues or economics?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Social issues, and I'm a sensor.

    4 12.12%
  • Social issues, and I'm an intuitive.

    21 63.64%
  • Social issues, and I'm a judger.

    7 21.21%
  • Social issues, and I'm a perceiver.

    16 48.48%
  • Economics, and I'm a sensor.

    0 0%
  • Economics, and I'm an intuitive.

    8 24.24%
  • Economics, and I'm a judger.

    2 6.06%
  • Economics, and I'm a perceiver.

    6 18.18%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 38

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I'm not sure about the definitions, the economy is social, social issues have an economic impact.

    The models of economics favoured by free marketeers are very dated, relics of an age way, way before even Cold War military keynesianism when arms spending in the worlds super powers out paced all other priorities.

    This is why a lot of the morally loaded arguments about social issues, ie welfare lifers, child poverty etc. reflect home economics, ie an individual's spending habits, means, lifestyle, rather than the need to keep money circulating in the economy, employment and the spending habits of savers versus spenders, even should they be spending very little that they receive by way of either state support or private charity.

    If free market orthodoxy where strictly observed the money would quickly be channelled to the one percent, their house hold spending couldnt possibly rival that of the state or low income "spend thrifts" in aggregate, employment would sharply decline as companies economise, making savings from human resources, existing workforces would be pushed harder, burn out quicker and exit the labour force to become a burden upon resource pressed families or limited and diminishing charitable providers and managerial expenses will become expansive leading to the kind of persistent board room pay scandals for failing businesses which alienate the public and encourage their support for demagogues.

    Think there's a crisis now try that, there's an equilibrium to be struck between the dynamism of competition, markets which conform to economic theories without grave social consequences and the unintended consequences of an economic based upon the circulation of money which can undermine work ethics, family functioning etc. where certain populations out grow others.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I dont know what I am BTW

  3. #23
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Absolutely none of that is true, and it is completely incoherent at points.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #24
    Senior Member statuesquechica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFj
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Posts
    428

    Default

    They both carry equal weight in my mind because at the root of a humanitarian crisis is usually an unjust economic system (principally deregulation, privatization and reduction of services). You cannot consider one without the other.
    I've looked at life from both sides now
    From up and down and still somehow
    It's life's illusions I recall
    I really don't know life at all

    Joni Mitchell

  5. #25
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Absolutely none of that is true, and it is completely incoherent at points.
    I'm sorry, is your highly subjective and unsupported personal comment directed at me or the original post?

    Perhaps, provided it was directed at me, you could highlight what you failed to understand and I could clarify it for you.

  6. #26
    Senior Member me_plus_one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Posts
    194

    Default

    To me, economics seem to be the pillar of todays' society.

    From a pure capitalist point of view, it seems wrong to be worried about social issues. Everybody must fend for themselves. If you are failure and don't manage that, it shouldn't be the society's problem.

    In addition to that, if you don't have an economy, it is only natural that no social issues, be as they are, will be solved since there is nothing to underpin their resolution.

  7. #27
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by me_plus_one View Post
    To me, economics seem to be the pillar of todays' society.

    From a pure capitalist point of view, it seems wrong to be worried about social issues. Everybody must fend for themselves. If you are failure and don't manage that, it shouldn't be the society's problem.

    In addition to that, if you don't have an economy, it is only natural that no social issues, be as they are, will be solved since there is nothing to underpin their resolution.
    I think you (and others) in this thread are laboring under a misapprehension of what is meant by "social issues." Social issues in the sense of the Nolan Chart (the two-dimensional, diamond-/tilted-square-shaped political spectrum) means flag-burning, gay marriage, regulation of pornographic and/or violent material in the media, etc. Redistribution of income, more or less funding of public health programs, and the like would actually be under the economic side of things.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #28
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm sorry, is your highly subjective and unsupported personal comment directed at me or the original post?

    Perhaps, provided it was directed at me, you could highlight what you failed to understand and I could clarify it for you.

    Surely.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #29
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm not sure about the definitions, the economy is social, social issues have an economic impact.

    The models of economics favoured by free marketeers are very dated, relics of an age way, way before even Cold War military keynesianism when arms spending in the worlds super powers out paced all other priorities.
    Doesn't make sense. Market economies are not "dated." They exist throughout the world. What does Cold War defense spending have to do with free trade and lower taxes now?


    This is why a lot of the morally loaded arguments about social issues, ie welfare lifers, child poverty etc. reflect home economics, ie an individual's spending habits, means, lifestyle, rather than the need to keep money circulating in the economy, employment and the spending habits of savers versus spenders, even should they be spending very little that they receive by way of either state support or private charity.
    What is "morally loaded" about saying "I have a right to decide how to spend the income I earn?" That is an assertion based on the classical Western concept of self-government. Also, the government SHOULD take some lessons on spending from responsible individuals. Printing more money to pump into the economy is not a long-term solution to raising living standards. In fact, the more inflation we have (and, thus, the less a dollar is worth), the more difficult it is for the working poor. People living on marginal incomes soon become people living on submarginal incomes when inflation is high. What you seem to be suggesting is that taxpayers shouldn't criticize the government for spending money it doesn't have. That is EXACTLY what taxpayers SHOULD be doing. Also, it's been demonstrated through the 20th Century that donations to charities increase when the overall tax burden decreases.


    If free market orthodoxy where strictly observed the money would quickly be channelled to the one percent, their house hold spending couldnt possibly rival that of the state or low income "spend thrifts" in aggregate, employment would sharply decline as companies economise, making savings from human resources, existing workforces would be pushed harder, burn out quicker and exit the labour force to become a burden upon resource pressed families or limited and diminishing charitable providers and managerial expenses will become expansive leading to the kind of persistent board room pay scandals for failing businesses which alienate the public and encourage their support for demagogues.
    This is so economically tone deaf, it's astounding. First of all, how would "money quickly be channeled to the one percent?" In the late-19th Century, when the United States had perhaps the freest economy in the world, living standards for the poor rose dramatically. That was the beginning of the urban middle and lower-middle classes as we know them today. The amount of people working in the country went WAY up. How would freer markets lead to fewer people working? Again, that doesn't make sense.


    Think there's a crisis now try that, there's an equilibrium to be struck between the dynamism of competition, markets which conform to economic theories without grave social consequences and the unintended consequences of an economic based upon the circulation of money which can undermine work ethics, family functioning etc. where certain populations out grow others.
    This literally doesn't make sense in English. I can't even find a thread of thought in there.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #30
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    If we were living pre-Civil Rights Movement, I'd say social issues. But right now, it's economic issues. I prefer New Keynesian economics.

Similar Threads

  1. Politics and / or Economics Forums
    By Valis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2013, 02:07 AM
  2. Intoverts, extroverts and dependency upon social networks or friends
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 05:40 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 03:54 PM
  4. Women, social issues, and how that translates into votes
    By proteanmix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 02:22 PM
  5. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO