User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 43

  1. #1
    Member Curtis B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    46

    Default MBTI types and Economic systems

    So I would like to know what the correlation between MBTI types and Economic system preference. Do certain types favor one system to another?

    As an INFP I am a Socialist sometimes teetertottering on the edge of communism. In a ideal situation, everyone is happy, healthy, and able to survive. Capitalism is a cold, brutal system with countless flaws (this isn't saying that Socialism is flawless, just more so than capitalism).

    I'd rather that everyone be able to survive rather than many many people dying at the hands of greedy tycoons.

    Share your MBTI and Economic views, please

    Have a nice night!

  2. #2
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    I'm an ISTJ and a supply-sider, which means I favor cutting taxes, cutting regulations, cutting spending, and establishing a sound currency (no more of this quantitative easing nonsense). Why am I a supply-sider? Because it works and it's created the greatest wealth on the planet and lifted the most people from poverty. In the 25 years following Reaganomics, more wealth has been created in the U.S. than in the previous 200 years.

    I also want people to be happy, but happiness is the result of earned success. This is where lefties err; they equate happiness with money and government handouts, but studies show that it's not money that causes happiness, but achievement. Lottery winners are ecstatic for a couple of months, but their happiness returns to baseline levels later on. Business owners are the happiest people (despite having to work long hours) because they see their dreams being realized. Lefties rob people of happiness by taking from them earned success. They do this by discouraging achievement through redtape (e.g. requiring licenses to run a lemonade stand) and welfare. Just 2 days ago, the Congressional Budget Office said that Obamacare would cost 2.5 million jobs by discouraging work. Every handout discourages work.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  3. #3
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Because it works and it's created the greatest wealth on the planet and lifted the most people from poverty. In the 25 years following Reaganomics, more wealth has been created in the U.S. than in the previous 200 years.
    It created wealth for the top 30%, but the median income has not increased when adjusted to inflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I also want people to be happy, but happiness is the result of earned success..
    You can earn success when you're born into the middle class and become a member of the upper-middle class. If you're born into a rich family, you have a realistic chance of finding a way to earn over $300,000 per year and secure your spot in the 1%.

    On the other hand, if you're born into a family of 10 with an income of under $20,000, your chances of succeeding are limited. When you don't have enough food to put on the table, live in a crime ridden neighborhood and receive virtually no adult supervision, your odds of growing up as a financially successful adult become very limited. It is still possible, but we hear of very few of such stories: typically, the individuals who rise out of poverty are exceptionally talented, enormously driven and often extraordinarily fortunate. Even if you are a member of the lower middle class where your parents work two jobs to just put food on table, you'll have a lot more to overcome than somebody whose parents are in the upper middle class and bring in roughly $100,000 per year. In the latter case, you'd have more adult supervision, would live in a safer neighborhood, have better medical care and would have to work fewer hours in your late teens and early 20s. At the very least, you should concede that in a supply-side economy, upward mobility is much easier to achieve for people who are at the higher strata of the socio-economic hierarchy. For that reason, upward mobility is higher in countries that rely less on supply side economics such as Germany, Sweden and France. If you're poor there and wish to live in greater material comfort, you can receive government provided training free of charge and your welfare check will prevent you from getting involved in the black-market economy dealing drugs or joining the underworld. Does that deprive you of the incentive to work? It could, but so does the American way of dealing with poverty: what's a better way to deprive someone of an incentive to work than to put them in a situation where getting involved with the underworld is the most viable way of earning a living? The public schools in the inner city ghettos are abhorrent and someone who lived in a crime-ridden community has virtually no chance of getting the degree that he'd need to have to get a lucrative job. He could probably achieve the same goal by becoming an electrician or a plumber, but even going to trade school is a tall order when he has to fear for his life each time he steps outside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    This is where lefties err; they equate happiness with money and government handouts, but studies show that it's not money that causes happiness, but achievement..
    The point of handouts is to give people a chance to earn a comfortable living, there is a reason why upward mobility is higher in most European countries than it is in the U.S. America used to be the land of opportunity for European immigrants prior to the 1980s, but that was when talented and driven people could get jobs by demonstrating competence instead of getting useless degrees. Today, you need a Bachelor's Degree for jobs that were available to high-school drop-outs in the 60s and in some cases you may even need a Master's degree. There is a reason why fewer people have a desire to immigrate to the U.S and the contemporary immigrants tend to be well-educated, industrious and often talented. On the other hand, it is more common for the ordinary Asians, Arabs and Africans to find their land of opportunity in Europe and not just by collecting welfare. The percentage of Germans on welfare is roughly equal to that of destitute Americans embroiled in the black market economy of drug dealing, prostitution and defrauding the handouts system. All countries will have a small portion of the population that will have no interest in working and removing them from welfare won't change them for the better. If they are lazy by nature, they'll just keep looking for easier ways to make a living by getting into a life of crime. Would you rather have them dealing drugs, killing police officers and staging armed robberies than collecting their welfare check. Yes, we are going to expend resources on supporting these people, but is it not worth it if that's going to reduce our crime rate precipitously? There is a reason why violent crime is much lower in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France than it is in the U.S. Can you think of a Scandinavian equivalent of the inner city American ghetto? How would you like to tell the families of police officers who fell in the line of the duty that you don't want the crime rate to go down because it's unfair for you to be taxed more to make that happen?





    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Lottery winners are ecstatic for a couple of months, but their happiness returns to baseline levels later on.
    Just as with welfare, you'll always have people who'll squander their assets, but there will also be those who'll turn it into a foundation of lasting prosperity. The former tend to be a minority and that's evidenced by a substantially larger middle class in most Western European countries than in the United States.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Business owners are the happiest people (despite having to work long hours) because they see their dreams being realized.
    Generally, people who fulfill their dreams tend to be the happiest, but not all business owners get to do that. Most people fall into entrepreneurship out of necessity and very few plan on it, that has become especially evident in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis where thousands of people were forced to start online businesses because they lost their jobs. Just because Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Sergei Brinn are living the dream of running a business in technology innovation, it doesn't follow that all entrepreneurs are as fortunate. I am an owner of a customized essay-writing business (www.academiccomposition.com), I am not having my "dreams realize" because of that. It is even questionable that the prosperous entrepreneurs who run a business that they always dreamed of having are happy. You can be sure that they derive a great deal of intrinsic satisfaction from the work that they do, but not all business owners are prosperous. On top of that, they may regret that their long hours prevent them from spending time with their families or pursuing recreational activities. In a way, they have more in common with starving artists and the naive graduate students who pursued a PhD in humanities just because it was always their dream to become philosophers or literary scholars. As you can see, many business owners and humanities share the predicament of working arduously long hours doing the work they love for insufficient compensation and with few opportunities to devote time to other important aspects of their lives. As a business owner who writes over 60-100 pages per week and worked for over 80 hours for a solid year, I can attest to that from experience. In short, expending a great deal of time and effort on rewarding work is an important part of happiness, but you'll be profoundly unhappy if it overshadows other aspects of your life that are just as important.







    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Lefties rob people of happiness by taking from them earned success.
    That's true to some extent, you do have to pay higher taxes to help those who are less privileged than you are. But then again, the left-leaning parties still leave you with enough opportunities to use your middle-class resources to become richer. After all, the living standards of the Swedish and the German middle-class are comparable to that of the American middle class, albeit the former generally work fewer hours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Just 2 days ago, the Congressional Budget Office said that Obamacare would cost 2.5 million jobs by discouraging work.
    Yes, but a good portion of those jobs belong to low income individuals who are already working two or three jobs. Because of Obamacare, they'll be able to afford health-care insurance working just 40 hours per week instead of 80. A good chunk of those people will be able to retire instead of working just to pay for their healthcare. Obamacare will inevitably eliminate some jobs, but so did laws that prohibited child-labor, imposed a 40 hour work-week and health/safety standards upon the factory industries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Every handout discourages work.
    That's true, but what's good about having septuagenarians and octogenarians work just so they can pay for their health insurance. Is it fair for someone to work 80 hours per week just to pay for healthcare just because they were born into a lower socio-economic strata than you were? Nonetheless, hand-outs do not always discourage productive work and the case of Bangladesh in 2001 is the case in point. The nation achieved a 98.5% employment rate by eliminating all welfare programs and that resulted in massive brain-drain. Their accountants, engineers and financiers were no longer in the position to collect unemployment for as long as they needed to in order to re-enter their field of work. Inevitably, they accepted much lower paying jobs where they were unable to make as productive of contributions to the work-force, as a result an economic decline ensued. The most prosperous countries of the world with the freest economies can remain productive not despite their welfare systems but because of it. Without them not only would productivity plummet, but the countries would become unstable and nations without any welfare systems are notorious for their instability.

    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

    I am sure you think that Canada, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia are socialist states because the handouts discouraged their citizens from working. The reality is that they are ranked higher than the U.S on the Index of Economic Freedom, have a lower unemployment rate, lower violent crime rate and display a higher upward mobility.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #4
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    I am a classic Liberal, preferring economic regulation and little social regulation. I am in favor of helping small businesses and heavily regulating large ones; I am in favor of a large government to create an equal platform of support for every person to start from, but plenty of personal freedom to pursue whatever people desire to pursue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Every handout discourages work.
    If we assume that people are not naturally inclined to work, which, for the vast majority, is well-documented to be untrue. People on the whole do choose and prefer to work, because, as you noted, achievement is a key factor in happiness. Most of us imagine that if we were suddenly given 10 million dollars, we'd never work a day again, but the reality is (if we didn't blow through all the money in a year or so) that we would simply have the time and resources to find projects particularly well-suited to our personal preferences.

    There is a segment of the population that would prefer to fuck off and not pull their share of the weight, but that segment is not endemic to the poor; it is simply visible in lower strata and invisible in higher strata. In other words, a slacker can slack with societal approval for no other reason than his family having money. He did nothing to earn that. A slacker born poor is visible for what he is.

  5. #5
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Free markets with reasonable regulation designed to keep oversight in the hands of non interested parties.

    Regulation also needs to be geared towards keeping investment vehicles within reasonable limits of complexity, and to keep them from hedging investment positions in such a way that what amounts to structural system wide risk is transferred to actors such as AIG which happened in the mid 00's.

    No single institution should be allowed threaten the system with its failure. There needs to be enough competition in the finance insurance market that the risk is spread amongst smaller entities.

    Any investment vehicle that passes a certain percentage of market share relative to other investments, as MBS products did, should automatically incur an oversight investigation aimed at preventing speculative bubbles.

    Regulators need the authority to operate across industries, such that derivative products and the assets that back them can both be considered when determining a threat to market stability.

    We need to standardize leverage limits across investment vehicles, specifically derivatives, such that regardless of the assumed stability of the asset backing the derivative the leverage allowed on the derivative is reasonably limited. IE just because the asset is backed with mortgages or some other asset presumed to be more stable than normal stocks, you can't push the leverage to such an extent that firms gain structurally dangerous levels of exposure to the market as a group.

    That being said, the modern world is built on credit, and the market moves us forward. Regulations and government should be there to keep us from going off the rails, but still allow us to go as fast as possible while staying on them.

  6. #6
    Member Curtis B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I also want people to be happy, but happiness is the result of earned success. This is where lefties err; they equate happiness with money and government
    No! No! No! Money=/=happiness. Survival=Happiness.
    Money, in most social agreements equals survival, therefore, by extension, happiness.

  7. #7
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    To sum it up, I have yet to disagree with Elizabeth Warren on anything. I haven't been as enthusiastic about a politician since, well, ever.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  8. #8
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I also want people to be happy, but happiness is the result of earned success. This is where lefties err; they equate happiness with money and government handouts, but studies show that it's not money that causes happiness, but achievement. Lottery winners are ecstatic for a couple of months, but their happiness returns to baseline levels later on. Business owners are the happiest people (despite having to work long hours) because they see their dreams being realized. Lefties rob people of happiness by taking from them earned success. They do this by discouraging achievement through redtape (e.g. requiring licenses to run a lemonade stand) and welfare. Just 2 days ago, the Congressional Budget Office said that Obamacare would cost 2.5 million jobs by discouraging work. Every handout discourages work.
    Ideally this would be the case where the harder you work, the more you succeed. It doesn't play that way in reality though. Someone could conceiveably work very hard and still barely make ends meet and someone else could succeed just because they happen to have the right connections or just get really lucky, not so much because they work hard. I do think some government handouts are necessary so the unfortunate people can have some level of financial security and get the basic needs of food and shelter met.

    Economically, I do lean left but not in the extreme.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  9. #9
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I want someone to discuss my proposed regulations with.

  10. #10
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    It created wealth for the top 30%, but the median income has not increased when adjusted to inflation.
    According to Art Laffer (one of Reagan's economic advisors), every quintile saw their income increase from 1983 to 1989 (adjusted for inflation). He picked 1983 as the starting point because that's when the bulk of Reagan's tax cuts took place. The lowest quintile saw a 6% increase in their median salary.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    You can earn success when you're born into the middle class and become a member of the upper-middle class.
    There is significant upward and downward mobility and there are policies that promote both directions, but earned success doesn't necessarily mean a good paying job. Earned success means accomplishing something that's meaningful to you and that could be raising a good kid or doing a kickass job painting the house.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    On the other hand, if you're born into a family of 10 with an income of under $20,000, your chances of succeeding are limited. When you don't have enough food to put on the table, live in a crime ridden neighborhood and receive virtually no adult supervision, your odds of growing up as a financially successful adult become very limited.
    I agree completely and the evidence is very clear that lefty positions such as anti-school choice and over-regulation make it almost impossible for the poor to escape their situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    At the very least, you should concede that in a supply-side economy, upward mobility is much easier to achieve for people who are at the higher strata of the socio-economic hierarchy.
    There's no need for opinion on the matter; we have numbers from the Reagan era. Under Reagan, a greater percentage of the bottom quintile people moved up than the middle and top quintiles. I would refer you to Art Laffer's 2008 book "The End of Prosperity".

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    It could, but so does the American way of dealing with poverty: what's a better way to deprive someone of an incentive to work than to put them in a situation where getting involved with the underworld is the most viable way of earning a living?
    There is a third alternative and that's to address the root causes of poverty: dropping out of school, having kids out of wedlock, being stuck in a bad school, and over-regulation that discourages entrepreneurship.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    There is a reason why violent crime is much lower in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France than it is in the U.S. Can you think of a Scandinavian equivalent of the inner city American ghetto? How would you like to tell the families of police officers who fell in the line of the duty that you don't want the crime rate to go down because it's unfair for you to be taxed more to make that happen?
    Here is another example where lefty policies harm society. Most lefties oppose the death penalty, gun rights, and the three strikes laws for violent offenders. The three strikes law puts violent criminals in prison for a long, long time for their third offense. It's done wonders in reducing crime since a significant percentage of the crime is committed by the same few criminals.

    I don't think raising taxes will reduce crime. If it did, high taxed places like Chicago and Detroit would have very little crime. You'd get much more success by allowing people to carry concealed guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
    It is even questionable that the prosperous entrepreneurs who run a business that they always dreamed of having are happy.
    It's not questionable since I'm not giving my opinion. I'm stating the results of a Gallup poll on job satisfaction. Self-employed people report the highest overall well-being and job satisfaction of any occupational group in the U.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights
    I am in favor of a large government to create an equal platform of support for every person to start from, but plenty of personal freedom to pursue whatever people desire to pursue.
    The two are usually incompatible. The larger the government, the more oppressive it becomes. We are seeing that today with the over-regulation, the NSA snooping, and the targetting of political enemies by the IRS.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI Type and I.Q.
    By RansomedbyFire in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 08-20-2017, 08:04 AM
  2. MBTI Types and Guitar Learning Styles: My Observations
    By simulatedworld in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-21-2012, 08:42 PM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 01:28 PM
  4. Your MBTI type and your Socionics type
    By 527468 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:03 PM
  5. MBTI type and Hypnotizability
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 02:05 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