On PoliticalCompass.org's test, I haven't moved much in my 5th time taking this test:

quote:

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

Have others tried taking this test?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You're not the first one who's sig got edited Youpes. Although I thought your sig was funny, it's understandable how some might find it offensive. Remember Zig, the irish dude who used to post here not too long ago? His sig was "100% Liberal" and that was the first one I remember being removed. I don't even understand how that could possibly be offensive.

I remember Zig, don't remember his signature too much.
And I can't find anything really offensive in my signature. The only way I can find it offensive is to zionist like me, but zionist like jokes.

quote:

Anyways, I think it's stupid to ban sigs because they're political. Bring back the mustard!

Yea, its sorta stupid I could post a USA flag or (hopefully) an Israeli flag as my sig, but if I state I'm a conservative/liberal, I guess it goes.

Funny thing is the sig doesn't even state that I am a zionist (thats my profile) or that the mustard is indeed zionist (unless you use ultrazoom). All it states is that the mustard is refreshing zionist, and even I have no clue what that means.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Anarchist folowing Bakunins line of thought

i believe the majority of users are being misrepresented considering there is now a clear majority in hte other category :30%.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Funny thing is the sig doesn't even state that I am a zionist (thats my profile) or that the mustard is indeed zionist (unless you use ultrazoom). All it states is that the mustard is refreshing zionist, and even I have no clue what that means.

And I was thinking of asking you about the significance/origin of the "mustard"?

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

On natural monopolies...

Basically, if we take the trains as an example (and my experience on them) then the franchises that took place after privatisation effectively gave companies a monopoly (over a certain area). When I was at university in Liverpool, there was only one train back to Sheffield (where I lived). Therefore, the laws of competition do not apply, as there was no alternative service if I was unhappy with that one (and being a train in the UK I blatently was unhappy!) This is basically the same everywhere in the country cos the franchises gave companies and certain part of the country to operate in, therefore no competition. No competition means there is no incentive for the train operators to improve the service as they would make the same amount of money anyway cos people have no other choice (suppose there's the buses but they take a lot longer and are more uncomfortable) The phone companies I suppose have worked and there is competition in gas and electricity but with water you just have one company per region. Its not like if I'm unhappy with Yorkshire Water I can switch to Summerset Water! Plus if these vital industries were centrally operated they would not have to make profits so either the prices could be kept low or the profits could be poured back into improving the services instead of paying off the shareholders

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley On natural monopolies... Basically, if we take the trains as an example (and my experience on them) then the franchises that took place after privatisation effectively gave companies a monopoly (over a certain area). When I was at university in Liverpool, there was only one train back to Sheffield (where I lived). Therefore, the laws of competition do not apply, as there was no alternative service if I was unhappy with that one (and being a train in the UK I blatently was unhappy!) This is basically the same everywhere in the country cos the franchises gave companies and certain part of the country to operate in, therefore no competition. No competition means there is no incentive for the train operators to improve the service as they would make the same amount of money anyway cos people have no other choice (suppose there's the buses but they take a lot longer and are more uncomfortable) The phone companies I suppose have worked and there is competition in gas and electricity but with water you just have one company per region. Its not like if I'm unhappy with Yorkshire Water I can switch to Summerset Water! Plus if these vital industries were centrally operated they would not have to make profits so either the prices could be kept low or the profits could be poured back into improving the services instead of paying off the shareholders

Well, this is where contracting comes into place! For example if only one train is profitable (or not even so) for a certain route, then you can have competition by seeing who can offer the best price/qulity/both for this certain service! So in that way you dont need any government to run trains, but at the same time you get competition on something that would otherwise be impossible to have competition on!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Plus if these vital industries were centrally operated they would not have to make profits so either the prices could be kept low or the profits could be poured back into improving the services instead of paying off the shareholders

Which is exactly where the problem of nationalised industry lies. In my mind Nationalised industries should be run at a profit. If service costing was calculated to include a small profit margin, the extra returns could be channelled back into improving services, or used as a cash reserve in the event of a crisis. You could run a nationalised industry with a small profit margin and still much cheaper than any potential private company.

I'm a fascist

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Which is exactly where the problem of nationalised industry lies. In my mind Nationalised industries should be run at a profit. If service costing was calculated to include a small profit margin, the extra returns could be channelled back into improving services, or used as a cash reserve in the event of a crisis. You could run a nationalised industry with a small profit margin and still much cheaper than any potential private company.

Which is exactly what I said in the second half of that sentense