ssorenn: That view is called radical centrism and I love it so much.

That's about the one you posted just a bit ago about everyone coming to center.

You do it by having obscene amounts of swag and money.

So, yoyo beings up a question I posed when I first got to the site, What is rich? Different people here now, and a younger crowd, so.........

I being up a question? How does one do that? I guess I can do a lot of things :)

Or nothing

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67
funny, I am placed almost identically on the chart as Gandhi is.
And for the record, I am above 30 :)

No one has an idea of what rich is? That's rich, LOL.....:)

I think rich is relative. If we go through massive amounts of inflation, a million dollars won't be worth anything in the future. I'd go with the top 20 percent of moneymakers in the US is rich. Then again the distribution of wea
th may be different so who knows. Any equivalent to 500,000 or more a year this year I would consider rich

A salary, is not rich, monetarily it's money in the bank. You could make a certain amount for a long time and feel wealthy, but spend it all every year and lose your job, where are you? Poor

You know, I do have a spreadsheet for my test. If I get enough I can make a nice scatterplot for it.

goldie: the terminology is strange. I think that the left-right axis should be "economic freedom" and the authoritarian-libertarian axis should be "social freedom."

Of course that might spin it towards libertarian because "freedom" sounds like an inherently good word.

I find it interesting how all of us seem to be in a curved shape. Everyone's either liberal, moderate, or libertarian. In other words, everyone's either moderate in both or in none. I wonder if this is true, that relative extremism in one axis means a greater chance of relative extremism in the other. Like, if everyone took this test, would it be an X-shape?

This is fascinating.

Yeah but if you have a million dollars in the bank with no income, you aren't in any better of a position, now are you?

You can 500,000 a year from company dividends, from interest, not necessarily a job. If you lose your job, by my definition you are no longer making 500k a year so you are not rich.

This will tell you what "rich" is:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

What virtue is there in occupying a centre position? It seems to me more of a grab-bag of different ideas that don't quite form a coherent picture. When you try to appeal to too many constituencies, you end up not really standing for anything. I am reminded of the Liberal Party of Canada (though the other mainstream parties in Canada do strive for centrist positions, none do so with the same vigour or self-satisfaction as the Liberals).

Occupying a center position means you have a differentiated agenda. You I am a center most likely because I believe that economically we should have regulated businesses but when it comes to people's income, they should fuck off with the socialist agenda.

Socially, I believe that government should mostly stay out of people's business except for in certain cases like social security and education.

Omit the "you" in the second sentence

YOYO sorry you wrong, with a million dollars in the bank you can have a conservative income of 30-35 thousand dollars a year after tax

Axis Position
1 left/right +0.9839 (+0.0592)
2 pragmatism +3.7321 (+0.2246)

"Differentiated agenda" seems to be code for "haphazard and morally incoherent policy preferences". Let's not be like those annoying Facebook friends who jump into comment wars by saying "Can't we all get along? There are legitimate points to be made on both sides."

It's like attempting to be everyone's ally by taking a middle ground position, but in so doing, you misapply the principles relevant to either side. Political ideologies are often mutually exclusive. You can't be a liberal with socialist leanings, as doing so would betray the core of both ideologies.

Pick a side, we're at war.

damn, I just tried to answer it, but in most of the question I only wanted to abstain and this was not an option. so I stopped doing the test.

I would define rich as having a major abundance of something. Not necessarily money.

" million dollars in the bank you can have a conservative income of 30-35 thousand dollars a year after tax"

Lol I don't know where you live, but in America, there is no such thing as a 3.5 percent interest rate on savings accounts. you'd be lucky to get 1%. I think the average is around 0.8%

"Let's not be like those annoying Facebook friends who jump into comment wars by saying "Can't we all get along? There are legitimate points to be made on both sides." "

But this is true. I'm libertarian in both economics and social spheres, while my (US-definition) liberal/socialist friends only share my opinion on the latter. I think they're wrong, but that doesn't mean that I can't understand where they're coming from and that they have legitimate points to be considered.

It's not a case of either saying "we're both right" or "you're 100% wrong." It's possible to mostly disagree, but still respect the other person's view.

who invests a million dollars in a savings account...thats funny and retarded at the same time

I'm on the Economic Left on here but purport myself to be some variation of capitalist.

Pangloss, I don't think you understand what a center position is. It means that I'm not liberal, conservative, or socialist. Therefore I can't betray any of their ideologies.

Take this example:
John wants to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate business.
Bill wants to raise taxes for the rich and regulate business.

If I want to cut taxes and regulate business, I am not "betraying" anyone because those stances dont exclusively belong to them.

Secondly, I do NOT misapply principles. Busnesses and People are completely different. If you don't regulate business, you end up with unwanted externalities that you understand if you took economics. This has to do with wealth persons' income, but I think they should be able to make whatever money they want without being penalized. The externalities of the businesses are unrelated to the income of their owners so they should be treated separately.

Lol as for your "Pick a side, we're at wat" bit, no. Just stop.

@LeinadT, perhaps I need to clarify more. I'm referring to the people who will try to brand a solution with bits and pieces from both sides of the argument, regardless of the principled justification behind these bits and pieces.

Your example of liberals and socialists agreeing on social issues with libertarians isn't quite what I was talking about. Multiple constituencies can agree on certain policy outcomes, but the reasons for their arrival at a particular policy can be varied. To take one example, the criminalisation of prostitution has supporters on both the left and the right. The feminist ultra-left oppose the exploitation of women and would never support the legalisation of prostitution. The socially conservative right would also oppose the legalisation of prostitution, but on moral or religious grounds.

None of the above is really of concern to me. There are only so many policies that can be had at a given point in time. What bothers me is when you combine a given policy position with numerous others that don't all come from the same ideological backing or when people claim to be middle ground when they wish to avoid intellectual accountability.

Often when people claim the centre, they support a number of principles ("equality", "free enterprise", "economic growth") but they seek "reasonable" limits on these principles. We must regulate the economy, but we mustn't regulate it too much! Well, what's too much? How do we define regulation? Every centrist you ask will have a different answer. It's surprising how much appeal centrism has despite its inability to provide predictable and consistent responses to various problems in society.

Ssorenn, what other account is there? checking? If you're talking about investment, you can make WAY more money by investing with continuous supply of money.