Political Compass: Question #20

[ElectionsGuy]

Disagree

[Cassius]

It's a biased question meant to lead the person taking the test to say yes. So no.

[ElectionsGuy]

It's a biased question meant to lead the person taking the test to say yes. So no.

Political Compass has a ton of these, from the left and right, for a good reason. It gets them to know how far left or right the person really is. Instead of just asking a bunch of different propositions and agree or disagree (Atlas's Matrix), they add a little ideological purity/hackishness in there to see if you'd really go that far. I think its actually a good idea, my PC score usually looks more moderate than my PM score.

[Cassius]

It's a biased question meant to lead the person taking the test to say yes. So no.

Political Compass has a ton of these, from the left and right, for a good reason. It gets them to know how far left or right the person really is. Instead of just asking a bunch of different propositions and agree or disagree (Atlas's Matrix), they add a little ideological purity/hackishness in there to see if you'd really go that far. I think its actually a good idea, my PC score usually looks more moderate than my PM score.

Maybe. I can see you point. On the other hand though, the question is flawed (firms don't have to be 'predatory, to end up as monopolies, and why specifically multinationals), as well as biased, which isn't surprising, given that its known to be biased in a centre-left wing direction (I think it has some association with Neil Kinnock). I mean, if the test was to work in the way you suggested, it would be better to come up with a set of statements ranging between the extremes, as opposed to one statement which your supposed to rate how much you agree with it.

[SWE]

Strongly agree

[Supersonic]

Agree. If only because it's the more pragmatic, sane answer in comparison to disagreeing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Disagree, but not strongly.

[H. Ross Peron]

Agree to an extent, but I also acknowledge that in several areas of the economy a monopoly is natural and the most efficient.

[MurrayBannerman]

I guess disagree. Predatory actions in order to gain a monopoly are anti-competitive.

Monopolies as a whole are not bad though.

[Flake]

Strongly agree

[TNF]

Capitalism will always, always, always tend toward monopoly. Antitrust law will never fundamentally alter that tendency because monopolism is inherent in large-scale industrial capitalism. It's a centerpiece of how the system functions. The only real way to abolish private monopolistic power is to replace it with public monopolism with worker-owned and managed industries.

[Dereich]

Capitalism will always, always, always tend toward monopoly. Antitrust law will never fundamentally alter that tendency because monopolism is inherent in large-scale industrial capitalism. It's a centerpiece of how the system functions. The only real way to abolish private monopolistic power is to replace it with public monopolism with worker-owned and managed industries.

That's a very odd statement. Monopolies can't exist without unusual barriers to entry preventing other companies from arising. No functioning economy, especially one with even halfway decent institutions is going to tend towards monopoly.

I agree with this statement, only because there are some cases where the "predatory monopolies" are only able to compete because OTHER governments are already interfering with markets. In these cases, counteraction isn't really bad or counter to a free market.

[AggregateDemand]

Agree. Without competition markets don't work for anyone. Anti-trust and monopoly regulation are necessary. Standard Oil is a perfect example of how irrational risk aversion can actually lead to inefficient allocation of capital, as well.

[Dr. Cynic]

Strongly agree

[Horus]

I hate questions like this. Very weak agreement.

[Cranberry]

Strongly agree

[Randy Bobandy]

Strongly agree

[Redalgo]

I think the wording is poor and that transnationals are much more common and significant here than multinationals but what I focus on in the question is whether anti-trust legislation seems appropriate. Answering "strongly agree" on #20 is my way to express a belief that, if left improperly regulated, at least some businesses will seek out means of distorting or discouraging competition, eventually leading a "genuinely free market" to undo itself. The state is not the only source of detrimental meddling here.

This is an especially significant problem abroad when a corporation can sometimes wield more power than the banana republic in which it is seeking to make handsome profits. The whole economy of a country can rely on one or two exports and will suffer terribly if anything goes wrong in getting those goods produced and shipped out. Nestle bullying around small countries in Africa provides a decent example, though I do not recall if cocoa-producing countries forming a cartel sufficiently dealt with the problem.

[Gass3268]

Strongly agree

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's a biased question meant to lead the person taking the test to say yes. So no.

Political Compass has a ton of these, from the left and right, for a good reason. It gets them to know how far left or right the person really is. Instead of just asking a bunch of different propositions and agree or disagree (Atlas's Matrix), they add a little ideological purity/hackishness in there to see if you'd really go that far. I think its actually a good idea, my PC score usually looks more moderate than my PM score.

Maybe. I can see you point. On the other hand though, the question is flawed (firms don't have to be 'predatory, to end up as monopolies, and why specifically multinationals), as well as biased, which isn't surprising, given that its known to be biased in a centre-left wing direction (I think it has some association with Neil Kinnock). I mean, if the test was to work in the way you suggested, it would be better to come up with a set of statements ranging between the extremes, as opposed to one statement which your supposed to rate how much you agree with it.

I find the PC website extremely odd. I find the questions skew you to the bottom left, while the analysis of major parties is absurdly skewed to the upper right quadrant.

They seem to subscribe to the banal "all parties are the same everywhere" ideology that's all the range in some fringe circles. I'd be surprised if Kinnock, of all people, would be involved with that.

[⛄]

Strongly agree (normal)

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Strongly agree.  Although question should be reworded as "a truly free SOCIETY".