#OccupyWallStreet movement

[United MKD]

To put it in simple terms alot of Macedonians during Yugoslavia under Tito and his communist system which more or less became capatalsit by the late 70's if you like, loved life in Yugoslavia. Lifestyle was great, open borders to foreign countries, health care was free, most factories and businesses were co-operatively, not state owned, most farms were in private hands. Yugoslavia was a much freer system than any of the Soviet countries, the federation was very loose, with republics allowed a large degree of autonomy.

I'm comfortable the way I'm living and I wouldn't necessarily change it, but people still seem to have the view that the 'west' are the heroes and the communists are 'evil.'

Yep.

[Vangelovski]

You really are making an absolute fool of yourself... Firstly I am not a communist, its a system that does not work, its corrupted by humanity..

Of course not comrade, your not a communist, you just prefer communist policies. This is typical of you comrade volk, defend something until someone finally calls you on it and then back track.

Secondly long term sustainable growth? Are you fucking kidding me? 50-70 years is long term? Do you know any history what so ever or do you think it began last century... Is destroying the planet sustainable?

You don't seriously believe that capitalism has only been around for 50-70 years do you? Do you know what capitalism is? Do you know how long private property and the free exchange of goods, services and capital has existed? Try taking another guess.

Stick to subjects that have have some understanding in...

hmmm....

[Vangelovski]

Tom, Soviet era scientists, artists and sportsmen made many impressive discoveries and achievements, that doesn't make me or anyone recognising this a communist. I'm merely acknowledging their achievements, you're the one crediting them with nothing.

No one is denying their achievements, I'm saying that they pale in comparison.

Communisms eventual failure was its inability to provide for mankinds greed, eventually capitalism will fail due to its inherent inability to reign in mankinds hunger for greed.

Communisms failed because it did not account for human nature. Capitalism does. Capitalism is simply the free exchange of goods and services, and the ownership of private property. Have a think about how long these principles and forms of economic activity have been around in their various guises before you predict its demise.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, I believe the 'Occupy' movement at its core recognises the dangers of an unchecked, immoral, free market system...

What do you believe is unchecked and what do you believe is immoral about it?

BTW Tom, the AK47 is ironically the quintessential capitalist consumer product... its simple design, fairly compact size and adaptation to mass production. It is inexpensive to manufacture, and easy to clean and maintain. Its ruggedness and reliability are legendary...More AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined....
The iPhone of its time and genre...

And that's another reason it was so successful

[Risto the Great]

I think everyone realistically accepts capitalism with a touch of humanity in the mix. How much "humanity" is the question.

When people ask me how many people work for me, I always say "all of them".

[Vangelovski]

I'm comfortable the way I'm living and I wouldn't necessarily change it, but people still seem to have the view that the 'west' are the heroes and the communists are 'evil.'

I wouldn't say communists are evil, just misguided. But communism itself is evil, as it violates numerous individual natural rights.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I wouldn't say communists are evil, just misguided. But communism itself is evil, as it violates numerous individual natural rights.

One might say that if it weren't for the communists, we'd all be fascists now under the rule of Hitler. In theory, would you support the creation of an Aryan race over social equality and equity?

Communism isn't evil, if anything on paper it is very understandable and reasonable. The working class far outweighs the 'exploiter' class in terms of numbers, so why shouldn't they rule the nation? They are what people call 'the 99%,' so I don't see why the 1% of elitists should dictate the whole show.

Capitalism provides far more 'development' opportunities yet the corruption and greed prevalent in this type of economic and social ideology is on par or even outweighs that of previous communist 'leaders.'

In regards to America supposedly being 'pure' and a prime example of how society and the economy should be regulated, I'll say that the western media has done its job quite well. I was listening to a Taliban interview a few months ago and the man being interviewed said something along the lines of 'If terrorism means to terrorise the people, then the Americans are the number one terrorists in our world.' I was ready to dismiss the statements made by this man, but that quote left me in agreement.

Everything seems fine, ultimately because the majority of us are living well...but does that necessarily make this current trend in capitalism right? Not at all.

[Vangelovski]

One might say that if it weren't for the communists, we'd all be fascists now under the rule of Hitler.

I highly doubt that it would have made a difference if the Russians weren’t under communism, if that is what you are referring to.

In theory, would you support the creation of an Aryan race over social equality and equity?

That’s a mass assumption – communism in no way represents social equality and equity, in my view, nor is it the only system which pretends to.

Communism isn't evil, if anything on paper it is very understandable and reasonable.

I would argue that it is evil even on paper. It may appear to sound ‘reasonable’ on first reading, but once thought through it does not sound ‘reasonable’ at all, and in fact seeks to violate numerous individual natural rights and pervert corresponding responsibilities.

The working class far outweighs the 'exploiter' class in terms of numbers, so why shouldn't they rule the nation? They are what people call 'the 99%,' so I don't see why the 1% of elitists should dictate the whole show.

This is a very simplistic view. How does the “exploiter class” rule the nation? Do you know how many Australians, for example, are self-employed or own shares in private companies (i.e., own the means of production in Marxist terminology)? Its more than one per cent.

Capitalism provides far more 'development' opportunities yet the corruption and greed prevalent in this type of economic and social ideology is on par or even outweighs that of previous communist 'leaders.'

Can you provide examples of how corruption and greed is “on par or even outweighs” that of previous communist leaders? You should think more carefully about that before going down that road.

In regards to America supposedly being 'pure' and a prime example of how society and the economy should be regulated, I'll say that the western media has done its job quite well.

Can you show me an example of who has made this claim about “purity” or it being a “prime example”? Can you compare that with how much the US has been criticised?

Everything seems fine, ultimately because the majority of us are living well...but does that necessarily make this current trend in capitalism right? Not at all.

What do you mean by the “current trend” and what is wrong with it? Can you be more specific?

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I highly doubt that it would have made a difference if the Russians weren’t under communism, if that is what you are referring to.

Well it actually does make a difference. Say the Soviets were under a fascist rule, I highly doubt the interests of Russia and Germany would have conflicted to the extent of brutal warfare. I'm sure you will find that Fascism and Communism don't exactly go hand in hand.

That’s a mass assumption – communism in no way represents social equality and equity, in my view, nor is it the only system which pretends to.

In my view it does. It advocates public ownership of essentially everything. Judging by this, the people, again theoretically, own the nation. Obviously it doesn't work when corrupt dictators exploit the system for their own personal interests, a common gene in all political and economic ideologies.

I would argue that it is evil even on paper. It may appear to sound ‘reasonable’ on first reading, but once thought through it does not sound ‘reasonable’ at all, and in fact seeks to violate numerous individual natural rights and pervert corresponding responsibilities.

What natural rights? Let me ask you this. Do you believe that all humans are created equally, or does ones monetary level or position determine their 'value.'? Materialism at its best.

This is a very simplistic view. How does the “exploiter class” rule the nation? Do you know how many Australians, for example, are self-employed or own shares in private companies (i.e., own the means of production in Marxist terminology)? Its more than one per cent.

I admit that was an overstatement but don't take it so literally. the 99%-1% view highlights the disperse difference in population against power. Cuba was essentially in this position under the rule of Batista who was a puppet of the US, the social revolution put an end to the majority of land being owned by a very small group of 'elitists.'
Of course in a capitalist society it isn't as black and white as that, but corporate greed is as bad as it's ever been in our community. What's your opinion on the owner of Qantas, he must be a top bloke showing complete disregard for his employees while he lines his own pockets. Extreme capitalism has desensitised people, $$ now comes before the welfare and emotions of those who are left with the short end of the stick. We talk about the Chinese people showing complete disregard for a dying child on the roadside, yet the same bullshit happens here just in a more 'humane' way.

Can you provide examples of how corruption and greed is “on par or even outweighs” that of previous communist leaders? You should think more carefully about that before going down that road.

Maybe there's some more oil over here...

Can you show me an example of who has made this claim about “purity” or it being a “prime example”? Can you compare that with how much the US has been criticised?

Well by suggesting that communism is evil, with every evil there must be a hero. The obvious 'opposite' to communism is capitalism.

What do you mean by the “current trend” and what is wrong with it? Can you be more specific?

The belief that the 'west' are the just ones in every shape and form. The privatisation of services that should be public, such as healthcare and education. You may watch the English Premier League, I know I do, and it is barely a sport anymore. How can we call ourselves democratic when the 'rich' are provided with a distinct advantage from the get go. Why do our leaders want a BIG Australia?
Money, money, money. Lol, maybe when I'm a billionaire I can hire my own PMC and take over the world!

[Vangelovski]

Well it actually does make a difference. Say the Soviets were under a fascist rule, I highly doubt the interests of Russia and Germany would have conflicted to the extent of brutal warfare. I'm sure you will find that Fascism and Communism don't exactly go hand in hand.

If the Soviets were fascists, then the war could have possibly been even more brutal with both sides trying to destroy the racially “inferior” other. As it was, the Soviets were much more “compassionate” (in relative terms) to the Germans than the German were to the Soviets.

In my view it does. It advocates public ownership of essentially everything. Judging by this, the people, again theoretically, own the nation. Obviously it doesn't work when corrupt dictators exploit the system for their own personal interests, a common gene in all political and economic ideologies.

Have you ever considered that the “people” were just as guilty of corruption and greed as their dictators and communism encouraged this?

What natural rights? Let me ask you this. Do you believe that all humans are created equally, or does ones monetary level or position determine their 'value.'? Materialism at its best.

How about the natural right to own private property? People are equal in rights and responsibilities, not skills and ability. What do you mean by a person’s ‘value’? Are you referring to their moral worth or how much they should be paid?

Of course in a capitalist society it isn't as black and white as that, but corporate greed is as bad as it's ever been in our community. What's your opinion on the owner of Qantas, he must be a top bloke showing complete disregard for his employees while he lines his own pockets.

The “owner” of Qantas? You mean the literally thousands of shareholders (owners) of Qantas? Or are you referring to the CEO? The CEO is an employee, paid to run the company by the shareholders. The more he makes for the thousands of Qantas shareholders, the more he earns. So if I was a Qantas shareholder, like thousands of Australian families, I would be glad to see the CEO earning more, because that would mean I would have a higher return on my investment.

Extreme capitalism has desensitised people, $$ now comes before the welfare and emotions of those who are left with the short end of the stick. We talk about the Chinese people showing complete disregard for a dying child on the roadside, yet the same bullshit happens here just in a more 'humane' way.

When has the same thing happened in Australia? Can you provide an example? By the way, the Chinese have been embracing capitalism for decades now, though they still have some way to go.

Maybe there's some more oil over here...

What does that mean?

Well by suggesting that communism is evil, with every evil there must be a hero. The obvious 'opposite' to communism is capitalism.

Can you provide an example? Just because something is evil, that does not necessarily mean there is a “hero”.

The belief that the 'west' are the just ones in every shape and form. The privatisation of services that should be public, such as healthcare and education.

Why should they necessarily be public? And if there is a public system, why shouldn’t there be a private system alongside it?

How can we call ourselves democratic when the 'rich' are provided with a distinct advantage from the get go. Why do our leaders want a BIG Australia?
Money, money, money. Lol, maybe when I'm a billionaire I can hire my own PMC and take over the world!

Who do you consider to be “rich”? How much does one need to earn, or how much wealth does one need to have accumulated in order to be considered rich in your view? How are they given a distinct advantage? What do you mean by distinct advantage? When is the “get go”? There are plenty of reasons for a big Australia, including some socialist reasons – tax money to pay for old age pensions and other welfare benefits

[EgejskaMakedonia]

If the Soviets were fascists, then the war could have possibly been even more brutal with both sides trying to destroy the racially “inferior” other. As it was, the Soviets were much more “compassionate” (in relative terms) to the Germans than the German were to the Soviets.

The Germans did indeed perceive the Russians as inferior due to their Slavic culture, but I doubt that Hitler would be that stupid. It's all political tactics, why would the Nazi's befriend the Japanese if their entire plight was to eradicate inferior races. Power was the key, and if the Russians happened to be under fascist rule, it is likely he would have made some kind of alliance purely based on a strategic advantage against the 'Allies.'

Have you ever considered that the “people” were just as guilty of corruption and greed as their dictators and communism encouraged this?

Yeh, I'm sure the peasants were very greedy, after all they had everything they ever wanted prior to the Cuban revolution, for example.

How about the natural right to own private property? People are equal in rights and responsibilities, not skills and ability. What do you mean by a person’s ‘value’? Are you referring to their moral worth or how much they should be paid?

You do realise that no matter how 'private' our land may seem, the government have the right to 'acquire property with just compensation.' If you feel so strongly about the right to own 'private property,' do you agree with corporate banks seizing property if one is unable to pay their debt? Do you think they really care? Living on the streets is public property.

The “owner” of Qantas? You mean the literally thousands of shareholders (owners) of Qantas? Or are you referring to the CEO? The CEO is an employee, paid to run the company by the shareholders. The more he makes for the thousands of Qantas shareholders, the more he earns. So if I was a Qantas shareholder, like thousands of Australian families, I would be glad to see the CEO earning more, because that would mean I would have a higher return on my investment.

Your right, my use of words wasn't quite accurate. He is the CEO because he owns a majority of the Qantas shares, thus is basically the 'owner' of Qantas, whether officially or unofficially. He owns a majority, and his word is worth more than the thousands of Australians who have bought shares in Qantas. So called 'profits' are distributed as dividends to shareholders, yet he reaps the majority of the rewards. Qantas shares have actually plummeted since the begging of the year, so I for one would not be pleased. Do you agree with the substantial cuts to maintenance costs and the ongoing redundancies in an effort to reduce costs? Why all the cuts, yet Alan Joyce receives a huge pay rise. The Qantas ads used to advocate a family airline where we 'call Australia home,' yet the safety of passengers is essentially being put at risk due to off-shore maintenance and expenditure cuts. I don't care how much Qantas is making, what they are doing is unethical and is a prime example of corporate greed on the shores of Australia. I'd dispute if it's still a true Aussie airlines, increasingly jobs are being transferred off-shore in the name of globalisation.

When has the same thing happened in Australia? Can you provide an example? By the way, the Chinese have been embracing capitalism for decades now, though they still have some way to go.

Showing disregard for people through business means is a more 'subtle' way than showing disregard for a human life. It seems some businesses are more concerned with getting you out of the door after their pay cheque than providing a quality service. James Hardy did it with asbestos, seeking cheaper avenues at the expense of the health and well being of human beings.

What does that mean?

Cmon, you really think the US have 'restoring democracy' as a fundamental reason for invaded foreign nations. War brings money, especially when there is oil involved. US forces turn a 'blind eye' to the large drug market in Afghanistan. Is that why it has grown since foreign occupation?

Can you provide an example? Just because something is evil, that does not necessarily mean there is a “hero”.

Why should they necessarily be public? And if there is a public system, why shouldn’t there be a private system alongside it?

These two comments contradict each other. My point is, how can there be evil if there is no opposite? For evil to be defined, good must also exist. It's a bit like the notion of God vs the Devil, they depend on each other to co-exist. Yet in your second comment you say why there should be private if there is public. I'm not completely against privatisation, yet it has become ridiculous to the extent of essential public services are being neglected at the gain of private sectors.

Who do you consider to be “rich”? How much does one need to earn, or how much wealth does one need to have accumulated in order to be considered rich in your view? How are they given a distinct advantage? What do you mean by distinct advantage? When is the “get go”? There are plenty of reasons for a big Australia, including some socialist reasons – tax money to pay for old age pensions and other welfare benefits

Let me ask you this, do you believe the likes of Gerry Harvey and other corporate figures continue working because they love their job? Or have they succumbed to greed, where there is never enough. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, because the majority of working adults I've spoken to look forward to retirement. Such figures have a fear of losing power, not making that extra million on top of their billion dollar bank accounts.

The 'get go' refers to when they are born. In public hospitals, it is common for a woman to give birth in the emergency area due to a lack of beds. In a developed western capitalist society, how is it possible that our public hospitals and schools are so under-funded? Some people cannot afford basic operations and others cannot afford to attend 'prestigious' private schools. If the inequality is not apparent to you yet, then you have put your blinkers back on in time for the Melbourne Cup.
I don't agree with a big Australia, the traffic is bad enough as it is. Our standard of living will plummet, at the expense of lining the pockets of the government and corporations who will benefit from such a 'plan.'

[EgejskaMakedonia]

I'm interested to see where everyone places roughly on the political compass. I think it is quite relevant to this discussion, but may be suited better to a separate thread. Here's the link to take the test.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This is the general 'political compass' which can be used to see where your results fall.



Comparisons with the believed position of notable figures:



I took this test back on the 11th of April and once again today, and despite not knowing my previous results, my outcome was virtually identical. Although, there are a few questions where I'm 'sitting on the fence.'

11th April 2011:



29th October 2011:


Economic left/right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

My views don't seem to have changed. At least that shows I'm consistent to some degree.
That'd also probably explain my stance on this issue, which you seem to find conflicting with your views Vangelovski.

[Vangelovski]

The Germans did indeed perceive the Russians as inferior due to their Slavic culture, but I doubt that Hitler would be that stupid. It's all political tactics, why would the Nazi's befriend the Japanese if their entire plight was to eradicate inferior races. Power was the key, and if the Russians happened to be under fascist rule, it is likely he would have made some kind of alliance purely based on a strategic advantage against the 'Allies.'

You should read up more on facism, WWII German in particular. Hitler’s key goals were to take the Soviet Union because he wanted to colonise it. It would not have mattered what ideological circumstances existed in the Soviet Union. In fact, throughout his entire rein, he wanted to make an alliance with Great Britain and hesitated in going to war with the United States.

Yeh, I'm sure the peasants were very greedy, after all they had everything they ever wanted prior to the Cuban revolution, for example.

You should also do some more basic research on the socialist systems in the former Eastern Bloc. Maybe even look into Macedonia as an example. One of the key problems in Macedonia, like all other socialist systems, was that people eventually realised that it didn’t matter if they weren’t productive at work, or even turn up to work. That’s because their jobs were guaranteed. In fact, many “workers” in Macedonia, and across the socialist bloc more broadly, in addition to turning up to work when they felt like it and basically doing nothing when there, began to pilfer whatever goods were produced for themselves. Corruption and laziness was endemic at all levels, from the lowly “worker” all the way to the dictator at the top.

You do realise that no matter how 'private' our land may seem, the government have the right to 'acquire property with just compensation.' If you feel so strongly about the right to own 'private property,' do you agree with corporate banks seizing property if one is unable to pay their debt? Do you think they really care? Living on the streets is public property.

Just compensation is a key concept. That does not mean that I agree with this system, but it is very different to state nationalisation. The think with banks seizing your property is that you don’t actually own it outright until you pay it off. This is one of many mechanisms in the capitalist system that ensures that people work for their belongings. If we were able to simply take things without paying for them, you would eventually find that people would stop producing these things and a whole chain reaction would occur throughout the entire economy, much like it did under communism.

Your right, my use of words wasn't quite accurate. He is the CEO because he owns a majority of the Qantas shares, thus is basically the 'owner' of Qantas, whether officially or unofficially. He owns a majority, and his word is worth more than the thousands of Australians who have bought shares in Qantas.

Are you sure that he is the majority shareholder? Do you want to check again? So what if he was the majority shareholder?

So called 'profits' are distributed as dividends to shareholders, yet he reaps the majority of the rewards.

Well, if he is a majority shareholder as you claim, one would expect that!

Qantas shares have actually plummeted since the begging of the year, so I for one would not be pleased.

Shares fluctuate on a daily basis. But if they are that terrible, then he will soon be shown the door.

Do you agree with the substantial cuts to maintenance costs and the ongoing redundancies in an effort to reduce costs? Why all the cuts, yet Alan Joyce receives a huge pay rise. The Qantas ads used to advocate a family airline where we 'call Australia home,' yet the safety of passengers is essentially being put at risk due to off-shore maintenance and expenditure cuts. I don't care how much Qantas is making, what they are doing is unethical and is a prime example of corporate greed on the shores of Australia. I'd dispute if it's still a true Aussie airlines, increasingly jobs are being transferred off-shore in the name of globalisation.

Is any of this accurate? Do you have any actual evidence to corroborate these claims? If the safety issues were that dire, Qantas would have been grounded. Tiger airlines, for example, were grounded for weeks because of safety issues.

Showing disregard for people through business means is a more 'subtle' way than showing disregard for a human life. It seems some businesses are more concerned with getting you out of the door after their pay cheque than providing a quality service. James Hardy did it with asbestos, seeking cheaper avenues at the expense of the health and well being of human beings.

Hang on, you’ve gone from running over a girl in the street and leaving her to die, to “disregard” through “business means”. Communist states also used asbestos, but didn’t pay out any compensation because they did not have the required legal mechanisms in place, did not even care to think about it (and still haven’t) and could not even afford to do so if they wanted to. But asbestos use (it has been in use since Roman times) is not the result of any economic system, its more the result of human stupidity.

Cmon, you really think the US have 'restoring democracy' as a fundamental reason for invaded foreign nations. War brings money, especially when there is oil involved. US forces turn a 'blind eye' to the large drug market in Afghanistan. Is that why it has grown since foreign occupation?

I’m under no illusions about American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, I’ve written quite a few papers on the matter. But I don’t think you have quite grasped the situation. War does not exactly “bring money” in, at least not for the state. In fact, regardless of their motives, I think that you will find that part of the reason the US Government is in so much debt now is because of their adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These two comments contradict each other. My point is, how can there be evil if there is no opposite? For evil to be defined, good must also exist. It's a bit like the notion of God vs the Devil, they depend on each other to co-exist. Yet in your second comment you say why there should be private if there is public. I'm not completely against privatisation, yet it has become ridiculous to the extent of essential public services are being neglected at the gain of private sectors.

The God vs the devil analogy is irrelevant. Just because an economic system may be ‘evil’, it does not mean there are any ‘good’ economic systems. They could in fact all be ‘evil’ to varying degrees. That has nothing to do with my statement in relation to public vs private. Further, I never made a case for why there SHOULD be a private system in health and education. I merely asked you why there SHOULDN’T be one. How are health and education, in Australia, being neglected in your view? How do you think a socialist system would make them better? Perhaps you can provide examples from former or current socialist health/education systems.

Let me ask you this, do you believe the likes of Gerry Harvey and other corporate figures continue working because they love their job? Or have they succumbed to greed, where there is never enough. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, because the majority of working adults I've spoken to look forward to retirement. Such figures have a fear of losing power, not making that extra million on top of their billion dollar bank accounts.

Who cares why they continue working? That is their individual choice to make for themselves. I don’t see how someone else’s decision to work longer and earn more money has any bearing on anyone else.

The 'get go' refers to when they are born. In public hospitals, it is common for a woman to give birth in the emergency area due to a lack of beds. In a developed western capitalist society, how is it possible that our public hospitals and schools are so under-funded? Some people cannot afford basic operations and others cannot afford to attend 'prestigious' private schools. If the inequality is not apparent to you yet, then you have put your blinkers back on in time for the Melbourne Cup.
I don't agree with a big Australia, the traffic is bad enough as it is. Our standard of living will plummet, at the expense of lining the pockets of the government and corporations who will benefit from such a 'plan.'

You claim that it is “common” for women to give birth in the emergency ward in public hospitals. Can you provide any actual evidence showing how common it is?

Hospitals and schools “so” underfunded? Do you know how much funding health and education actually receive in Australia? Do you know what percentage of GDP they are provided? Do you know what percentage of Federal and State budgets they receive?

Most people cannot afford basic operations. That is why we have both public and private medical insurance. About 2/3 of people do not attend private schools, but what difference does that actually make? Can you measure it?

How will our standard of living plummet by a big Australia? How do you expect the state to pay for all these socialist policies you have been supporting without a large enough tax base?

[Vangelovski]

My views don't seem to have changed. At least that shows I'm consistent to some degree.
That'd also probably explain my stance on this issue, which you seem to find conflicting with your views Vangelovski.

These are highly simplistic 'tools'. What would be more interesting is how your views change in 10 years time, rather than a few months.

[Soldier of Macedon]

..........capitalism or a comparison to communism, the answer sits, like most things somewhere in the middle.

Neither system is perfect. Although it has been interpreted in different ways (depending on who is making the criticism), I think the concept of centrism or 'Third Way' seems reasonable (on paper at least) if implemented in accordance with the (broad) description below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/458626.stm

The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepeneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about.

[blackcactus]

I'm interested to see where everyone places roughly on the political compass.

I was surprised to see that I exactly lined up with the Dali Lama, I'm in good company which suits me just fine

So my result may indicate where I sit on this subject, safe to say I mostly favour the views of Phoenix and EM

I don't try too hard to change peoples views on forums as it's mostly pointless, so I wont go too far in this debate, once people have a World view most will almost never change regardless of the facts

If some people don't get what the fuss is with Occupy Wall Street then nothing we say will change that, this ground swell has been bubbling away for a very long time, if the obvious has just flown over some peoples head then they are already on their knees and don't know it yet

The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepeneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about.

Look to the Scandinavian states such as Sweden, Finland, Norway if you want to see the Third Way as you described it above, then judge how they are doing socially and economically