Where do you stand politically?

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I think the government should do what we cannot do individually. Defense, international treaties, etc. Listen, I'm nit advocating no government nor am I saying that there should be zero regulation. I just believe people should be responsible for themselves. The USA has ample opportunity. This is why we are a destination for hundreds of thousands of people. If non citizens can come here and succeed with the tools that we provide, I expect citizens to do the same.

I also don't believe that government is altruistic. People might want the government to enforce what they think is reasonable, but the government can quickly turn. I support strong limits on the power of government and more responsibility shouldered by the individual.

 

[DominiConnor]

I see the problems in government as mostly engineering.

Firstly in chemical engineering:
If you look at the way that candidates are chosen, it is by activists, this is true of all democratic (and theocratic) systems, the US however has a process that applies efficient fractional distillation to produce candidates who satisfy people who are often frankly obsessed. I don't mean "extreme" in the left/right sense, I mean people who think that rights for rare squirrels equate to national defence and others who believe that prayer in school will bring peace and prosperity. no one can satisfy them honestly, look at the problems John McCain had.

Second in software engineering.
The original US constitution is a horrible document, rather like the source code of an early version of Windows. I had to read that some years ago, and some of it was so arcane that staring at it for days produced effects on my thinking that affect me even today (not in a good way). Windows, like the US constitution has derivatives that are hugely successful even though some specific objectives have been turned around 180 degrees.
The roles of the houses in the federal government aren't at all as designed and Windows was originally designed specifically to help data sharing between programs, whereas part of my job then was to stop that happening, and a good % of the source of Windows now is to prevent data sharing. The original US constitution regards black people explicitly as less than human and one of its safeguards was explicitly to stop the USA from having a standing army, and it is really quite hard to interpret the words within it as a right to bear arms whilst shopping, rather it seems more like the basis for compulsory membership of a state militia where like in the Swiss model citizens get issued with military grade hardware and are obliged to learn to use them properly.

 

[mfegrad]

Who says the government is made up of angels? No, at the moment it's made up of a few idealists, a bunch of people with dirty sexual issues, or corporate shills like most of the right wingers.

painting with broad strokes, i see.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Well, I propose a question that I think the participants in this debate should first attempt to answer as fully as they can:

What is the purpose of government?

Rephrase the question: what are the origins of the state? Then look back thousands of years to the first states (Babylon, Sumeria, Akkadia, Assyria, Egypt) for the answers. There has to be some sort of agricultural surplus to begin with, which can be expropriated (either by force or through the legerdemain of finance) to support new classes of rulers, scribes and priests (both embryonic bureuacrats), and soldiers (the central pillar of the state is always armed force to permit coercion against both its citizenry and foreign states). This is, incidentally, also the origin of the class system. The class system and the state reinforce each other. These functions of the state -- to permit an overclass of rulers to siphon off the wealth of the rest and to expand militarily (or at least to ward off threats by other expansionist states), and to do both by coercion and violence -- remain just as true today. It was just as true in the Soviet Union as it is in contemporary China or the USA. And you can leave the rest of the discussion -- idle chatter mostly -- to theorists like John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

1) Regulation in moderation is not an issue. Of course worker safety laws are good. Of course laws preventing companies from dumping radioactive waste into lakes is good.

2) How is it that corporations and right wingers are somehow inherently bad or unable to govern? Democrats and left leaning politicians screw things up all the time also. How is pandering to big business worse than pandering to a social class or environmentalists?

This is exactly why I prefer less government and less business ethics. What you think is ethical and ideal, I see as an intrusion and a nanny state. I know you would absolutely dislike my form of government and corporation actions.

I simply cannot understand how people can willingly wish for the government to tell them what to do all the time. Personally, I think it is nothing more than a misguided attempt to control other people. Being a libertarian is so easy and so hard. You need to allow people to make bad decisions. You need to realize that people are free and individuals and you have no right to tell another grown adult what to do, as long as their actions are not harming you or others.

It's not about people being told what to do all the time. It's about keeping corporations under control. The fact that some corporations have by pure coincidence in their undying pursuit of profit no matter the cost elsewhere does not suddenly make them saintly. The purpose of corporations is not to ensure better standards of living for American citizens, to benefit humanity, to create jobs, etc. etc. etc... The purpose of corporations is to maximize shareholder value. That is, make as much money as they possibly can.

All of the good social externalities that arise from the actions of corporations are fortunate side effects. And hence, the role of government is to create laws so that we get more of those fortunate side effects, rather than things like the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, or the credit crunch.

 

[Lin]

hold up everything!!.. Gandhi, Hitler, Dalai Lma, Bush n co took this test?? :p

 

[MaciejT]

hold up everything!!.. Gandhi, Hitler, Dalai Lma, Bush n co took this test??

and Stalin!!!

....the chart it funny for many other reasons e.g.: Hitler is in the first quadrant close to the OY axis which would imply that national socialism is closer to libertarianism then to communism. This is clearly an absurd (recall M. Friedman who claimed that w.r.t. the economy there was no practical difference between soviet socialism and national socialism). The chart should provide a faithful representation of economic freedom vs. social rights - instead we have a completely misguiding plot.

Or check this out: Sarkozy dot is next to Thatcher dot - sorry but this is ridiculous. (Lady Thatcher would probably call Sarkozy a lousy communist knowing her attitude to the EU experiment).

Moreover, the author of that analysis puts e.g. Zapatero (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) and other European socialists in the first quadrant hence being in the 1st quadrant does not even imply being on the right wing.

If one speaks about the economy, the right wing is the Austrian School e.g. Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Krugman - certainly not Zapatero or Merkel.

 

[Sory]

Just out of curiosity... what is the average quantnet-er's stance politically?
This website does a pretty good assesment. I'm a right-libertarian.

And you, Quantnet?

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.62

 

[euroazn]

Alexei Smirnov I believe the purpose of government is to help protect our fundamental rights - but of course that begs the question what our rights are.

I believe everyone agrees with this view but disagree on what rights are worth protecting/are rights at all.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Freedom of speech does not mean no responsibility. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is an attempt to harm people, not speak your mind. Honestly, I think the Bill of Rights is pretty solid when it comes to basic rights. Of course some of those freedoms have been watered down over the years, but I blame people who too readily trade freedom for the perception of security.

Government should protect us from ourselves? What right do you have to try and protect me? Also, seatbelt laws are simply a revenue generator, not some magical effort to protect us. Once government starts "protecting" us from ourselves, the slope gets real slippery. Protecting someone is always in the eye of the beholder. I have a mom and a dad, I don't need a bunch of politicians sitting around trying to keep me safe. None of their business.

 

[euroazn]

I believe there is no such thing as "fundamental rights" and even "rights" for that matter.

Well, that's why you're liberal and I'm not

 

[SYau]

This thread explains why our TA is so quiet during class tonight! :D

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

North Korea punishes any speech that they consider against the regime. That is a lot different than punishing speech that causes harm.

No, I do not support government sponsored anti obesity movements. Yes, over eating is bad for you. So is having unprotected sex, lack of sleep, stress, too much salt, tanning, contact sports, etc. I am an adult. Decisions I make are mine.

Look at it like this. It always starts with good intentions. When they realize people simply try and find ways around things, then they up the ante. Look at the war on drugs. Great intentions, horrible results. Red light cameras have great intentions, yet they increase rear end accidents because people jam on their breaks.


Trying to control other people either completely fails or leads to North Korea style government. IMO, let people be free.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

A corporations duty and goal is to maximize shareholder value, while operating within the bounds if the law. By shareholder value I mean true, long term value.

We make up the shareholder. Maybe in the past only the rich owned a piece of a company, but with 401k's, etrade, pensions investing in the market, etc, normal people now own the company. Especially with the Internet, the smallest voice can be heard.

Maximizing value is an agnostic approach. The counter is that you think a company should help people or the environment or something like that. The issue is 1)how to you execute this when investors share differing opinions on these topics and 2) how do you entice people to invest when earning money for them is a secondary thought.


Ethical, activist companies are great, but unless people give them money they are just a thought.

Honestly, if I want to donate money, I will give it to a charity of my choice. I give money to a company because I want more of it returned to me in the future.

 

[IlyaKEightSix]

A corporations duty and goal is to maximize shareholder value, while operating within the bounds if the law. By shareholder value I mean true, long term value.

We make up the shareholder. Maybe in the past only the rich owned a piece of a company, but with 401k's, etrade, pensions investing in the market, etc, normal people now own the company. Especially with the Internet, the smallest voice can be heard.

Maximizing value is an agnostic approach. The counter is that you think a company should help people or the environment or something like that. The issue is 1)how to you execute this when investors share differing opinions on these topics and 2) how do you entice people to invest when earning money for them is a secondary thought.


Ethical, activist companies are great, but unless people give them money they are just a thought.

Honestly, if I want to donate money, I will give it to a charity of my choice. I give money to a company because I want more of it returned to me in the future.

1) And it's the government that can make new laws on the fly, and therefore alter the operating course of a company. Hence the role of the government to keep corporations in line. Maximize shareholder value within the confines of the law? Well, if corporations aren't having the social good that's wanted, write new laws to make them operate differently.

2) In terms of mom and pop shops owning large companies and every little voice heard: in theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not. I believe the majority of people that own stock are in the top 10% of Americans, and by that I mean the vast majority. And of those people, only those who are really on top of monitoring individual companies (we're talking professional investors) probably do any sort of voting. It isn't that mom and pop are so fed up with the state of the nation that they buy shares of Goldman Sachs to vote to cut Lloyd Blankfein's pay.

 

[Andy D.]

You need to allow people to make bad decisions.

I agree with Anthony up to a point here. Bad decisions can be useful, you can learn from them, and then turn them into a useful lesson, especially in the business world. Broadly speaking people doing stupid things should accept the consequences of their actions.

However where I diverge is that, I personally don't like to assume everyone is "making a decision" in the sense that they are making a concious free-will driven decision to perform act A or B (and apologies Anthony if you weren't suggesting that is always the case).

I think some of the reasons people do things, is still yet to be explained by psychologists, psychiatrists and Neuro-science.

We know some people have split-personality issues, phobias, addictions and generally accept the plead of insanity in some court cases. Therefore I think we could argue that decision making processes can be irrational and are driven by factors that the person in question may have no control over.
Does childhood trauma affect the outcome of the adult? Is it rational for society to arbitrarily choose a date from which henceforth the individual is held accountable for all their actions e.g. at aged 18?
I'm not sure we can just answer these questions with a simple model of "decision making".

This of course shouldn't be justification for a nanny state, but maybe we should recognize the need for safety nets in some areas and if the government isn't to provide it, should at least help to facilitate it.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I agree that there should be limits. Everything in moderation.

Here is my basic thinking. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Until we can find a magnanimous saint who will make laws for the good of all, we will be stuck with politicians who use laws meant to "protect" us as a way to control us. Drugs are less than ideal. Pot makes you generally lazy. Same with booze. In an ideal world, no one would drink or do drugs and we would live up to our fullest potential. Unfortunately this is not so. Government has tried to save us from ourselves and it has caused carnage. Freedom is scary and dangerous at times, but the alternative is even worse.

Capitalism and freedom aren't perfect, but they are the least horrible option, IMO.

 

[Yike Lu]

Ethical, activist companies are great, but unless people give them money they are just a thought.

This is starting to happen more and more. As our culture becomes more aware of social issues, "green" and socially responsible companies will start to gain more market share and become more profitable. I've seen the beginnings of that shift even in my (relatively short) lifetime.

Now obviously this has very little to do with the corporation "wanting to do good", but rather the corporation understanding new ways of seeking profit because of cultural shifts...

 

[finengtoo]

How about Ron Paul's ideas to dismantle the Federal Reserve? That's something both political and of interest to quants. I'm just kidding with the question. Funny things are being done by politicians. Ron Paul likes to talk about fundamental rights.

 

[finengtoo]

Can a womyn be a quant in Saudi Arabia? Or is it not politics? What's the punishment for the crime of being a quant lady? Driving cars is not allowed.