Flake against Trump

I'm not sure I understand your picture, Cl1mh4224rd,

From a European perspective on US politics, I'd have thought there are still the extreme fringes, but that the mainstream (which I presume is the "centre") is further to the right than the left, in the US.

Or am I misreading what you are saying?

ETA: I tend to think of Anarchists as being extreme left.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand your picture, Cl1mh4224rd,

From a European perspective on US politics, I'd have thought there are still the extreme fringes, but that the mainstream (which I presume is the "centre") is further to the right than the left, in the US.

Or am I misreading what you are saying?


It's probably just not getting across the idea that spawned it. Maybe this will be a bit more clear:

Code:
|---------------------|========|========================|-----|
                   Extreme   Center                  Extreme
                   Left                              Right

The basic idea is that, relative to some "objective" center, what gets called "extreme right" is a lot further to the right than "extreme left" is to the left.

Also, the concern expressed in other parts of the comment I paraphrased earlier was that the right keeps pushing to the right, while the left tends to stay in the same place, which, of course, drags the average to right. I'm not sure I completely agree with that, but I also don't feel like I can disagree with it.
 
Last edited:
It's probably just not getting across the idea that spawned it. Maybe this will be a bit more clear:

Code:
|---------------------|========|========================|-----|
                   Extreme   Center                  Extreme
                   Left                              Right

The basic idea is that, relative to some "objective" center, what gets called "extreme right" is a lot further to the right than "extreme left" is to the left.



Got you :thumbsup:

Yes, I think that is the case.
 
This isn’t accurate. The vast majority of Europe is firmly free market. The US is much more tolerant of market inefficiencies as long as these are not created by government actions. European nations are much more willing to use regulation to make a market more efficient but also to sacrifice some efficiency for equitability. Nonetheless the basic systems are still fully free market based, and because they are willing to deal with non-government factors that make markets less free they can be more competitive and efficient overall.

That is because the very idea of market inefficiencies is heresy in the US.
 
That is because the very idea of market inefficiencies is heresy in the US.

Yup. Every major party in every developed country is Free market, it’s approach to market efficiency and market failures that differentiates them. You could argue US Republicans are the lone exceptions because their position is outside main stream economics.

Ordered from Right to Left on the political spectrum:

Mainstream US Republicans – “market failures don’t exist, prevent Govenrmetn6 failures at all costs” (completely outside mainstream economics)

Far Right EU, moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats – Chicago School “Market failures exist but Government failures are almost always worse.” (This is at the very edge of mainstream economics. My issue if that you can never get Chicago School economists to admit something needed to be regulated until after it blows up in which case they say something like “of course that should have been regulated, we don’t oppose all regulation”

Right Wing EU, Mainstream Democrats –Err on the side preventing Government failure. Measures to address market failures should not be taken unless the benefit is very clear.

Centrist EU, Left leaning Democrats – Try to balance Government and Market Failures.

Left Wing EU, US Left leaning 3rd party wannabe – Err on the side of preventing Market Failures.

80’s Communist block – “Government failures don’t exist, prevent market failures at all costs”
 

Back
Top Bottom