Thread: "Our Fading Heritage" US Civics Quiz

The key word was "long term" which is perfectly true, though I won't disagree that the IMF and World Bank do a shitty job of tailoring their requirements to the needs of a developing nation (which is a sterling example of how the free market could provide better allocative efficiency)

IMF/World Bank do a terrific job. It's a lot easier to understand how their policies are effective and actually not the complete failure they appear to be when you understand that their purpose is not to help developing nations, but in fact to secure private property rights for our corporations to the natural resources of third world countries. They are tremendously successful at this.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

#25: The question is asking for a definition of capitalism/free market, so B is the only correct answer. It's such a fine line that I won't even argue that E isn't true; it's just not the answer to the question.

It's their intended answer, and it's the correct one provided that you accept the established dogma about what capitalism is, dreamed up by the jokers who have designed our ridiculous monetary policy, rather than looking at what is going on in the real world, right now and throughout history.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

#27: A isn't perfectly worded, but it is the closest to truth and it addresses the allocative inefficiency of centralized planning caused by the in-practice difficulty of attaining suitable information. Theoretically, if every stakeholder in the market had perfect information, it wouldn't matter which system you used because all would be capable of allocative efficiency. Hasn't worked that way in the real world, unfortunately.

We've all heard this song before. See above.

Originally Posted by ollie cromwell

works better than "marxist"

Yeah, I see your point.

nine castles why are you pathologically incapable of accepting definitions? I vaguely understand rejecting some of these premises in practice, or even the application of the defined term to the systems in practice, but that doesn't change the definition.

It's ironic that only a couple posts ago you wanted to apply the strict definition of liberal to suit you, but now want a loose definition of capitalism. Have your cake or eat it.

Originally Posted by nine castles

A is "conditional" on it actually being the case. Which it isn't, if you don't own stock in Exxon, DuPont, or United Fruit.


That isn't even the correct answer according to your stuck-in-1786 conservative loverboys who wrote this thing. Property rights and contracts are enforced by the government not the market. Pull your head out of your ass.


You watch Fox News a lot, don't you?



You really haven't a clue what liberal means, at all.

A is not conditional in the long term. It just isn't. Also, stock is not a produced good.

What Atmosfear said. I was answering the question the way it should have been worded.

I do not at all watch Fox News. In fact, I don't watch any news. I prefer print. But my economics professor proved it using economic models during the presidential election. I trust the knowledge he imparted to me more than yours.

I'm speaking in American terms. I don't want to get technical, so I'ma call you a liberal, and you can't stop me :P.

(it's ironic just like Alanis Morissette's #1 single of the same name)

way to interrupt my double post mystery

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

nine castles why are you pathologically incapable of accepting definitions? I vaguely understand rejecting some of these premises in practice, or even the application of the defined term to the systems in practice, but that doesn't change the definition.

It's ironic that only a couple posts ago you wanted to apply the strict definition of liberal to suit you, but now want a loose definition of capitalism. Have your cake or eat it.

We're not talking about definitions. We're talking about the distinction between real consequences that these ideas have in real life and the fantasy constructed by people whose salaries depend on them inventing ever more complex and ridiculous rationalizations to defend an untenable position.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I'm speaking in American terms. I don't want to get technical, so I'ma call you a liberal, and you can't stop me :P.

"Liberal" as in the rhetorical scare-word, the thought-teminating cliche that is applied to anyone using government for something you don't like. Like socialism lite, liberalism is nothing but a political pejorative to you. If you think Ollie Cromwell or I are liberals, well... then whatever you mean by it is such a wide definition that it has lost all meaning to you.

Nine castles is arguing based on the assumption that his previously stated assumptions are true, which they aren't. Nine castles is also arguing based on the assumption that the slow down we're seeing right now has always been happening, which it hasn't. If he is not willing to concede one or both of these, or at least allow himself to play devil's advocate against what he thinks, then arguing with him is like arguing the value of eating red meat with a vegan.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Nine castles is arguing based on the assumption that his previously stated assumptions are true, which they aren't. Nine castles is also arguing based on the assumption that the slow down we're seeing right now has always been happening, which it hasn't. If he is not willing to concede one or both of these, or at least allow himself to play devil's advocate against what he thinks, then arguing with him is like arguing the value of eating red meat with a vegan.

Nine castles has said nothing about the current "slowdown" (read: catastrophe) in this thread (until now). Nine castles' assumptions are all right, always, because he is infallible. Nine castles thinks Mr. E's analogy is as bad as something that is really, really, bad.

Originally Posted by nine castles

"Liberal" as in the rhetorical scare-word, the thought-teminating cliche that is applied to anyone using government for something you don't like. Like socialism lite, liberalism is nothing but a political pejorative to you. If you think Ollie Cromwell or I are liberals, well... then whatever you mean by it is such a wide definition that it has lost all meaning to you.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, you can tell me what things mean to me now. It was in that memo you sent me.

Not liberal as in the rhetorical scare word, liberal as in on the left side of the political spectrum. In the last political science book I had it was illustrated on a line, so I'll present it to you that way. Everything left of the middle had 'liberal' over it and on the far left side is communism. Everything right of the middle had 'conservative' over it and on the far right side is fascism.

But, instead of arguing, let me just ask you this: Do you consider yourself a conservative or a modern conservative?

Originally Posted by nine castles

Nine castles has said nothing about the current "slowdown" (read: catastrophe) in this thread (until now). Nine castles' assumptions are all right, always, because he is infallible. Nine castles thinks Mr. E's analogy is as bad as something that is really, really, bad.

Oops, the thread went on too long and I mixed you and ollie together. My bad on that one. Also, use of such words as 'catastrophe' is only going to make it worse. That's just basic thugonomics.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Not liberal as in the rhetorical scare word, liberal as in on the left side of the political spectrum. In the last political science book I had it was illustrated on a line, so I'll present it to you that way. Everything left of the middle had 'liberal' over it and on the far left side is communism. Everything right of the middle had 'conservative' over it and on the far right side is fascism.

A deeper understanding of political theory than what you got in POLS-105 might help you here. I'd love to help you out but I don't think you want to know.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

But, instead of arguing, let me just ask you this: Do you consider yourself a conservative or a modern conservative?

I might as well ask you if it's true that you no longer beat your wife. Get a grip.

Originally Posted by nine castles

A deeper understanding of political theory than what you got in POLS-105 might help you here. I'd love to help you out but I don't think you want to know.

I might as well ask you if it's true that you no longer beat your wife. Get a grip.

Politics is not my strong suit, economics is, but nothing I could learn about politics would change any of my opinions whatsoever, just perhaps some of my terminology.

I'm going to ignore that last part, mainly because it is a ludicrously imperfect comparison. I actually have a pretty strong grip, and getting stronger. I've been slowly taking up rock climbing.

Originally Posted by MrTroy

It depends on WHY someone calls themselves a conservative or liberal. If it is fiscal and based on economy and free market, than I am a conservative. If you look at my social beliefs, such as free speech\no censorship, civil rights,rights for gay people etc... I am a liberal.

People usually claim to be conservative or liberal based on their religious and social beliefs, not the fiscal or free market portion of the argument.

Oh, that is what he was talking about. I know that, lol. I suppose I was speaking in broad generalizations. I'm a conservative both socially and economically, though back before I understood economics I was an economic liberal.

Originally Posted by nine castles

We're not talking about definitions. We're talking about the distinction between real consequences that these ideas have in real life and the fantasy constructed by people whose salaries depend on them inventing ever more complex and ridiculous rationalizations to defend an untenable position.

We are talking about an online civics quiz which is asking various questions about the definitions of economics terms. What you aren't grasping here is that the questions are about theoretical definitions, not practice. You seem to want to reject answers about the definition in favor of answers regarding their practice, utterly ignoring the question itself.

Even if the answers you have selected were true answers, that doesn't make them correct answers.

What color is the sky on a sunny day?

A. Blue
B. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1992
C. The color of the sky is created by the refraction of the sun's light by the various particles that make up the atmosphere
D. Apples

I'm sorry the correct answer was A

Well Atmosfear that all depends on your perception, your frame of reference, and if you trust either. For example, for all any of us know some people may view the sky as apple (here I am using it as a variant of red), but they know that color as blue. So, to them, apple would be the correct answer but they would say blue because they don't know any better,

One of the other managers at my work is colourblind and is prepared to testify that the sky is actually a yellow-grey colour.

Perception.

Originally Posted by nine castles

A deeper understanding of political theory than what you got in POLS-105 might help you here. I'd love to help you out but I don't think you want to know.

Nah, a good POLS-105 course would at least teach you about dual axis considerations of gov't -- I'm hoping you don't come out of intro with the belief that political action can be measured on a 2-dimensional continuum.

And now that I'm not drunk, Atmos, I haven't somehow missed that some people are content to sit back and let others take their licks. I am proposing that if you are willing to trade your own personal economic wellbeing for other people getting screwed, you're acting in an abhorrent amoral fashion. I'd also propose that this is largely due to you being fed the red, white, and blue from an early age much in the same way others are fed evangelical Christianity. But yeah, its easy to say "screw the other guy" when you're seated in a position of privilege.

That doesn't negate the fact that we're facing the worst crisis in years that will have real, embodied effects for some Americans -- even if they're the Americans you don't give two shits about.

It also requires a view of America as the center of the universe without attending to the other hundreds of companies that will take much bigger dumps as the result of our financial crisis.

But as long as you get yours, everything's cool, right?

You guys realllllllyyyy fagged this thread up fast.

ollie: aside from the generalizations on where my feelings come from, you're correct. I just don't believe "the pursuit of happiness" is a government guarantee to happiness. You seem to be content to paint me into the image of an old scrooge. The fact of the matter is that my family and I give both time and money to a number of charities, many of which directly benefit the same people who stand to benefit from government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. I feel it is our responsibility to determine where our excess is funneled and who it benefits (if anyone at all), not the government's.

And while you seem to feel it is amoral for the wealthy to rest on their laurels, do you not feel it is equally amoral for the poor to gain unfettered access to the pocketbooks of those who work by the simple virtue of a 50% + 1 vote majority? Morality is a finicky thing and you'll find no hypernorms to cover this situation.

Originally Posted by sycld

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org...rces/quiz.aspx

The average score for the participants was 49%. For college educated people, it was 55%. Pretty pathetic.

For sycld-educated peoplez, it was 30 out of 33 correct-- 90.91%. To be honest, I should have only gotten 1 out of the those 3 wrong, but I got nervous and thought the questions were tricks...

no what's pathetic is the widespread belief that US history is more important than world history when you live in the US

You answered 22 out of 33 correctly — 66.67 %

To be fair, though, I am a Canadian.

Spoiler

question 8 references question 2

sputnik is not american civics

neither is business profit

Learning language is more important than learning your own country's history

Smoking weed everyday is more important than learning.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Smoking weed everyday is more important than learning.

Luckily, they are not mutually exclusive :420:

Originally Posted by nine castles

Luckily, they are not mutually exclusive :420:

Amen. Some might say necessarily constituent. :420:

You answered 29 out of 33 correctly — 87.88 %

Not too bad I think.

Spoiler

Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
Question #14 - B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity
Question #19 - B. teaching evolution in the schools
Question #30 - C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending

I'm genuinely surprised by the number of people who miss the Scopes Monkey Trial question.

The Gettysburg Address one doesn't surprise or concern me.

Originally Posted by MrTroy

World history is of utter importance, but nothing is more important than to learn your OWN countries history, and then about the world and how it all fits together.

The concept of nation-states is a modern phenomenon. World history is by far more important than learning about one patch of land. Learn world history first to see how the country you are from fits in. There are people who can't point out Iran on a map but want to bomb the fuck out of it.

I have to agree, both national and world history are extremely important topics that EVERYONE in a democracy should learn, but the problem with learning one's own national history first is that in the era of the nation-state, the history one learns is inevitably permeated with and seen through the prism of nationalistic propaganda; your government and citizens who are most concerned with deciding what history children learn wouldn't have it any other way.

And of course, this then creates a distorting prism (in a subject that already necessarily suffers the distortions of historical perspective) through which the student views international history, seeing only what is in accordance with this pre-determined view of national history and discarding the rest.

I mean, mention the word Chomsky and American history to an American and you're very likely to start an argument, even though whatever you might think of his political views, the actual historical basis on which he founds his "black armband" view of American history are very close to 100% factual. Most Americans simply can't accept that, because it tends to refute what they "already know" about the nature and trends of modern American history and in particular it's international relations.

I wonder how different that might be if they were to learn world history first, before American history.

Originally Posted by jack burden

The concept of nation-states is a modern phenomenon. World history is by far more important than learning about one patch of land. Learn world history first to see how the country you are from fits in. There are people who can't point out Iran on a map but want to bomb the fuck out of it.

i agree, except knowing where a country is on a map isn't quite the same thing as knowing about its history, citizenry, political climate or etc. knowing exactly where something is on a map isn't that important, really, except inasmuch as its location directly comes into a discussion about something else that IS important. like its proximity to israel and the consequences thereof.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

I mean, mention the word Chomsky and American history to an American and you're very likely to start an argument, even though whatever you might think of his political views, the actual historical basis on which he founds his "black armband" view of American history are very close to 100% factual. Most Americans simply can't accept that, because it tends to refute what they "already know" about the nature and trends of modern American history and in particular it's international relations.

I wonder how different that might be if they were to learn world history first, before American history.

Except that Chomsky has frequently been guilty of misquoting, paraphrasing, and quoting out of context in order to further his criticism of American foreign policy.

He also has a major flaw in his general economic belief and the evidence he claims to support it; he frequently argues against counterexamples of socialism's success by mentioning the interference of US foreign policy, but consistently overlooks the fact that economies and political systems do not exist in a vacuum, and if a policy is liable to upset its neighbors and incite economic sanctions of military actions, then it isn't an ideal substitute.

Because I don't want to derail this thread further with a discussion of Chomsky (which I admittedly do not study), I will say that while he isn't entirely off in his thinking, in the same way many of the equivalent right-wingers have valid points, placing Chomsky on a pedestal is considerably premature.

Originally Posted by gwahir

i agree, except knowing where a country is on a map isn't quite the same thing as knowing about its history, citizenry, political climate or etc. knowing exactly where something is on a map isn't that important, really, except inasmuch as its location directly comes into a discussion about something else that IS important. like its proximity to israel and the consequences thereof.

shut up convict

knowing a country's location is important to understand historical change. if you're talking about the history of europe, the middle east, asia, etc., you need to know regions and locations to put it in context. the islamic world stretched from the iberian peninsula to the steppes so if you're going to talk about the history and spread of islam you're going to want to know who ruled over what region and how that had an impact on future states