Society/Culture Why do less intelligent people gravitate to conservative/right wing ideology.

[O Grobbecker]

So would I.

Here's a meta-analysis that's far more wide ranging.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55893129.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZksKNiq38AhWmwjgGHVyFAdQQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xHhvNmp4MW8yHxMsywA_c

There is a significant body of work on the subject. Assuming the entire concept is based off a single study is folly.

Where does that [bolded part] come from ? You posted an article with a controversial heading but without comment. Any reasonable person would assume that it’s the article that is up for discussion. Being a reasonable person, I critiqued the article and you agreed, it appears, with my critique, or at least with the conclusion I drew. Where have I made any comment on your “entire concept”, let alone assumed that it’s based solely upon your posted article ?

When I posted my critique, I was castigated by Gethelred, who, ironically, approved your post, for posting off topic. Episode IV has already posted a response to your post. Can you two sort out what can or can’t be posted in this thread and let us all know ?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Benefiting low income earners doesn't necessarily serve the interests of the majority.

The majority put the ALP into office on the basis of their promised stage 3 tax cuts, amongst other things they promised. I presume you'd be up in arms if the ALP promised funding to public schools and/or hospitals at election time then reneged.

I can assure you that the middle and lower classes did not vote for the ALP because the rich were getting tax cuts. 87% of people are better off under the new arrangement. I don’t see any of them yelling at clouds over a so called “broken promise.” However, I do see quite a few of those who got less than expected rather comfortable with the direction Albo and Chalmers have taken here.

As for the whole broken promise thing…if you think that Albo is Robinson Crusoe there then I have some magic beans to sell you. All politicians break promises. Literally all of them. This just happens to be an excellent promise to break.

Do you think Dutton is going to take The Voice II referendum to the next election? After all, he promised to…oh, that’s right, he’s already walked that back.

 

[ElectricG]

Bout time we had some more people with a STEM background representing us

 

[evolved2]

I can assure you that the middle and lower classes did not vote for the ALP because the rich were getting tax cuts. 87% of people are better off under the new arrangement. I don’t see any of them yelling at clouds over a so called “broken promise.” However, I do see quite a few of those who got less than expected rather comfortable with the direction Albo and Chalmers have taken here.

As for the whole broken promise thing…if you think that Albo is Robinson Crusoe there then I have some magic beans to sell you. All politicians break promises. Literally all of them. This just happens to be an excellent promise to break.

Do you think Dutton is going to take The Voice II referendum to the next election? After all, he promised to…oh, that’s right, he’s already walked that back.

The 87% of people who are better off under the new arrangement are generally happy with an election promise being broken because it's in their benefit.

Throughout the covid years I heard SRP posters bemoan the selfishness of Australians; now you're telling me its a good thing.

Whatever I post here is obviously going to fall on deaf ears because the 87% have been bought.

If you refuse to hold your team accountable and the others refuse to hold their team accountable, you end up with Hawthorn and Essendon.

I'm going to take a short break from this thread, mate. My wisdom is required elsewhere.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Benefiting low income earners doesn't necessarily serve the interests of the majority.

The majority put the ALP into office on the basis of their promised stage 3 tax cuts, amongst other things they promised. I presume you'd be up in arms if the ALP promised funding to public schools and/or hospitals at election time then reneged.

With ALP and LNP both breaking election promises in recent years, should we assume you will now vote for Greens? They havent broken any election promises.

Or is this song and dance just another episode of hypocrisy?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The 87% of people who are better off under the new arrangement are generally happy with an election promise being broken because it's in their benefit.

Throughout the covid years I heard SRP posters bemoan the selfishness of Australians; now you're telling me its a good thing.

Whatever I post here is obviously going to fall on deaf ears because the 87% have been bought.

If you refuse to hold your team accountable and the others refuse to hold their team accountable, you end up with Hawthorn and Essendon.

I'm going to take a short break from this thread, mate. My wisdom is required elsewhere.

No, you're right of course. The struggling middle-class is selfish. And what of the poor? Selfish bastards, the lot of them.

Why won't somebody think of the battlers in Toorak?

Will you vote for Dutton knowing there's going to be no new referendum as promised? You've quite the dilemma now, don't you?

(and I say these things without addressing the increasing number of strawman arguments you have made on this topic)

 

[Seeds]

No, you're right of course. The struggling middle-class is selfish. And what of the poor? Selfish bastards, the lot of them.

Why won't somebody think of the battlers in Toorak?

Will you vote for Dutton knowing there's going to be no new referendum as promised? You've quite the dilemma now, don't you?

How do you define struggling? Why is the middle class struggling?

ps. People under 35 with incomes of 200 thousand are in the bottom half of the wealth pie and would therefore clearly also be middle class.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

How do you define struggling? Why is the middle class struggling?

Let me make it simple for you.

Generally speaking, those on lower incomes are doing it tougher than those on higher incomes. It's actually common sense. 87% of people are now better off. Amazingly this coincides with the lowest 87% of income earners. Crazy I know, and I get that you Tories struggle with these things but that's ok, I'm here to help.

Had Albanese passed on extra tax cuts to the poor whilst keeping those for the rich he'd have been accused of overspending because of Laybah...thus providing further evidence that it's not good enough for those on the right to win, but everybody else has to lose in the process.

 

[evolved2]

No, you're right of course. The struggling middle-class is selfish. And what of the poor? Selfish bastards, the lot of them.

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Why won't somebody think of the battlers in Toorak?

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Will you vote for Dutton knowing there's going to be no new referendum as promised? You've quite the dilemma now, don't you?

Red herring.

(and I say these things without addressing the increasing number of strawman arguments you have made on this topic)

Meh.

 

[Spearman]

I can't agree with any system that removes the incentive to achieve more.

How would you stop someone earning $999,999 from negotiating loopholes with their employer or moving overseas?

So billionaires will want to stop earning more money?

Don't they already spend millions buying politicians and organizations just so they can continue to add to the billions they will never come close to spending?

 

[Chief]

I can't agree with any system that removes the incentive to achieve more.

How would you stop someone earning $999,999 from negotiating loopholes with their employer or moving overseas?

I higher tax rate on a higher earning individual is less of a disincentive than a higher tax rate on a lower earning individual.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Red herring.

Meh.

As expected, you have nothing.

Carry on.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Jessus!

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/why-sussan-ley-has-an-extra-s-in-her-name/news-story/4c2bb14f934012a810d2001682e2cc42

“I read about this numerology theory that if you add the numbers that match the letters in your name you can change your personality,” she told The Australian.

“I worked out that if you added an ‘s’ I would have an incredibly exciting, interesting life and nothing would every be boring. It’s that simple.

“And once I’d added the ‘s’ it was really hard to take it away.”

For the parody thread

 

[Ghost Patrol]

For the parody thread

Who is Sussan parodying?

 

[Grin]

Bout time we had some more people with a STEM background representing us

Less politics, more science and reason and logic? Interesting proposition

Probs we get the politicians we deserve. Although we don’t pick them. We just vote for them.

 

[ElectricG]

Less politics, more science and reason and logic? Interesting proposition

Probs we get the politicians we deserve. Although we don’t pick them. We just vote for them.

Stack the joint with as many centralists and numerologists as possible.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Bout time we had some more people with a STEM background representing us

Problem is, half the country believes the anti-science politicians and their compliant media.

These people are more worried about which supermarket sells plastic flags ffs

 

[Engimal v3]

Small brains is my theory.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

So billionaires will want to stop earning more money?

Don't they already spend millions buying politicians and organizations just so they can continue to add to the billions they will never come close to spending?

Isn't that literally what capitalism is?

I mean i agree that money becomes obsolete at some point in the terms of using it as currency. But the more money you have the more power you have. I doubt billionaires dont typically care about the money side of it, i doubt there is a fundamental difference between 1 billion and 2 billion. It's more the power and ego they continue to seek.

Innovation is largely driven by capitalism, so i'd be against limiting the amount people can make.

Smart taxation is the key, but where there is regulation, there will always people seeking loopholes. That won't change under any arrangement.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Problem is, half the country believes the anti-science politicians and their compliant media.

These people are more worried about which supermarket sells plastic flags ffs

Do you have evidence of this?

Once again msm and social media has tricked (and you're not alone) you into thinking that 'half the country believes this' is the popular norm.

It probably isn't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Isn't that literally what capitalism is?

If you think this is the intended design of capitalism, you'd be wrong.

What you're talking about is price gouging profiteering.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Do you have evidence of this?

Once again msm and social media has tricked (and you're not alone) you into thinking that 'half the country believes this' is the popular norm.

It probably isn't.

I don’t think it’s necessary to provide evidence. You have no standing in this court of public opinion.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

If you think this is the intended design of capitalism, you'd be wrong.

What you're talking about is price gouging profiteering.

All capitalisms means is a system in which economic elements are controlled by private people to generate a profit, as opposed to owned by a state.

Price gouging is definitely part of capitalism, but that's the point of it? if you are innovative enough to come up with a product or service that the market wants, they will pay for you it. Thats why capitalism largely fuels innovation.

The opponent to price gouging is competition. Usually, we get price gouging because something is limiting competition. Whether its government regulation etc etc. Apart from some utilities, i can't think of a service or product which has a genuine lack of competition on its own merit.

Take Qantas for example. They were price gouging because the Government restricted competition through restricting Qatar flight slots. That is an example of something inhibiting capitalism.

i think it sounds like your possible issue is with the regulation of capitalism, as opposed to capitalism itself?

 

[Carringbush2010]

The opponent to price gouging is competition.

This is the intent of capitalism

i think it sounds like your possible issue is with the regulation of capitalism, as opposed to capitalism itself?

Bang on!

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don’t think it’s necessary to provide evidence. You have no standing in this court of public opinion.

Nor do you.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Nor do you.

We have a similar post count, but I have almost three times as many likes.

Probably just a coincidence.