How far right are you?

[Admiral Yi]

My new definition of moderate is someone who doesn't get spazzed out inordinately.

[The Brain]

It works both ways.  It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.

To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.

You cannot serve two masters.

[crazy canuck]

It works both ways.  It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.

To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.

Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?

[grumbler]

It works both ways.  It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.

To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.

Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?

  He didn't give a definition for anything.

[Eddie Teach]

It wasn't a general definition, but quite specific to the present day Republican and Democratic parties. I would consider someone calling them both far right parties to either be a far lefty or simply confused.

[The Minsky Moment]

  It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work.  .

It's one of the most examined questions in growth economics.  For 200 years people have been making predictions that labor saving technology or capital intensification will inevitably result in enduring declines in employment and they all have turned out wrong.  There is a ton of empirical studies addressing this issue, which are being added to all the time.  Economics is not a hard science and empirical analysis of social facts are not conclusively proof for all time, but as economic theories go, the rejection of the lump of labor fallacy in the context of automation is one of the most robust results in all of economics.  It is about as far from being an "article of faith" as exists in economics. 

[crazy canuck]

It works both ways.  It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.

To an American, a moderate is typically someone who supports candidates from both parties. To many foreigners, a moderate is someone who wouldn't dream of voting Republican.

Hypothetically if both parties are far right what does that do to your definition?

  He didn't give a definition for anything.

I see, he merely stated his view of what the word moderate means to an American and what the word means to many foreigners.  No, not a definition.  More like a description of meaning.

[Sheilbh]

And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/

QUIZ!

[The Minsky Moment]

On a policy level, I think it's a mistake, since we want people to get comfortable with the idea of not working and ultimately transition to living off the basic income to the normative state in the face of automation and a reduced demand for labor.

I think I see where you may be going awry.

The "demand for labor" is not some immutable fact of the universe, following deterministically from a set of technological capabilities.  It is a social phenomenon, influenced by the structure of productive relations and culture as well as technology (and the business cycle of course).  In the world of Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, it is presumed there will (or should) exist a dominant preference for a certain kind of cultured leisure, such that technological improvements in productivity will tend to increase leisure per head and constrain market labor demand.  That future is one where people are content to have their consumption rise more slowly then the rate of productivity growth, and take the excess as leisure.

This is arguably an attractive vision, more attractive then our reality, but it is more normative than descriptive.  People seem rather stubbornly to prefer increasing their consumption -- even if it is apparently frivolous or self-defeating like chasing ever more dear positional and prestige goods -- rather then their leisure.  But there is no reason it absolutely HAS to be that way - we could have a future whereby people maintain standards of living greatly exceeding historical norms and yet enjoy much more leisure time.  And it could be argued that outcome should be supported socially and politically.   But that is different from claiming that it actually WILL happen, much less that it inevitably MUST happen.

[Sheilbh]

I wonder why we can't imagine it.  It might be because it's an unexamined article of faith amongst rightists and neoliberals, its sole logical underpinning an inductive process that assumes since the economy created jobs after the collapse of agriculture and industry in the West it will also create jobs following the collapse of service sector work.  It would be more persuasive if the goal of capitalism were to create jobs, when of course it isn't.  Capitalism, like evolution, is a mindless process that doesn't have a teleological goal at all; the goal of avowed capitalists is to create wealth (for themselves).  That it's resulted in wealth generation that has been shared (albeit markedly unevenly) by all sectors of society is a meaningless thing to point out, since capitalism did it entirely by accident.  It's even more meaningless, given that the conditions which permitted that have been replaced by new conditions to which you'd prefer to remain willfully blind--not least the end of the mid-century consensus towards a compromise with socialism's economic goals as a way to fight socialism politically at home and abroad.  But above all you purposefully fail to comprehend the automation revolution that is underway, comparing it to farmhands moving to cities.  In reality it is like nothing previously seen in human affairs.  There is no fourth labor sector.

Sadly, the less-educated rightists and the more pie-eyed neoliberals have bought into several decades of propaganda and come to anthropomorphize capitalism as an conscious entity that has a list of priorities, with job creation at the top.  All will be well--because their priests tell them so.  That this incredibly adolescent worldview can be accepted by idiots is not too surprising, but that it is parroted by otherwise smart people is amazing.

So why do we need jobs? 

Set up a guaranteed basic income, a three day working week and tax capital/wealth. I really don't get the angst over robots. Humans are more than labour, we have the chance for utopia. So, why not?

It works both ways.  It seems a lot of Americans view themselves as more moderate then I would have guessed.

Americans fetishise their prelapsarian centre to an alarming degree.

[The Larch]

And FWIW, here are my results from the quiz at https://www.politicalcompass.org/

QUIZ!

Beaten, I think. 

[Sheilbh]

I'm slightly disgusted I'm so libertarian

[The Larch]

Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? 

[Sheilbh]

Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? 

It ain't all bad

[crazy canuck]

Because being an authoritarian is such a hoot? 

It ain't all bad

Its all fun and games until a few million die when their farms become owned by the collective.