Keep your day job dude. I'm not here to teach you how to invest money.

@pangloss, I don't think you understood my example, but that's okay.

What I meant was this: if I disagree with you on issue A, it doesn't mean that I think your point doesn't have merit, or that I can't learn from your thought process, and it certainly doesn't mean that we're "at war."

What I'm saying is that you can be civil and friendly with people who have opposing viewpoints, and even learn from them, without compromising your own views.

"Pangloss, I don't think you understand what a center position is. It means that I'm not liberal, conservative, or socialist. Therefore I can't betray any of their ideologies."

Then what are you? What is the principle (or set of principles) that unifies your political leanings and policy prescriptions?

"Take this example:
John wants to cut taxes for the rich and deregulate business.
Bill wants to raise taxes for the rich and regulate business.

If I want to cut taxes and regulate business, I am not "betraying" anyone because those stances dont exclusively belong to them."

You'll find that neither Bill nor John will agree with your position, and if you are running for elected office, either might have trouble supporting you. (Of course, one or both of them could vote for you, but they do so with great reservation). If you merely wish to participate in political discourse but not as an institutionalised actor, then your calls for both of them to meet in the middle will go unheeded.

"Secondly, I do NOT misapply principles."

If you say so.

"Busnesses and People are completely different. If you don't regulate business, you end up with unwanted externalities that you understand if you took economics. This has to do with wealth persons' income, but I think they should be able to make whatever money they want without being penalized. The externalities of the businesses are unrelated to the income of their owners so they should be treated separately."

There are externalities for a large number of actors and actions. Saying simply that externalities apply only to businesses is misguided. Beyond that, what do you see as "regulation"? For example, too-big-to-fail regulation played a major role in making certain banks bigger and fail-y-er. Once the list of protected banks was unveiled, those found on the list began to merge with each other and engage in risky activities that contributed to the 2008 crisis. Government regulation is often used to protect certain interests, whether it be for the public good or for private gain. Absent a unifying theme or else some sort of guided application, regulation can make any problem worse.

At any rate, your very words provide ample demonstration of the incoherence of centrism. What makes you think that individual actions cannot result in externalities? There are plenty of examples of externalities brought on by individuals acting. You don't provide a reason for which business externalities need to be regulated but individual ones cannot.

"Lol as for your "Pick a side, we're at wat" bit, no. Just stop."

Why? We are at war, and cherry-picking the middle serves little purpose other than self-congratulatory masturbation.

ssorenn - 3-3.5% is bad for conservative haha. Treasuries are around 2.4%

One thing you could do is lock in a forward contract with the Russian ruble, invest money in a Russian savings account (which should be yielding ~15% now) and then just wait a couple months to get a near-guaranteed 15% return.

^^second bit was @yoyo, showing you can get that with a savings account

Ah, my bad. Its a 10% return. Just checked Sberbank

"But what if the middle ground finds genuine benefits to society by implementing those bits and pieces? Centrism provides to benefit society as whole instead of certain ideologies. That's the point."

But what if straying from the middle ground finds genuine benefits to society by implementing a morally coherent policy agenda?

"@pangloss, I don't think you understood my example, but that's okay.

What I meant was this: if I disagree with you on issue A, it doesn't mean that I think your point doesn't have merit, or that I can't learn from your thought process, and it certainly doesn't mean that we're "at war."

What I'm saying is that you can be civil and friendly with people who have opposing viewpoints, and even learn from them, without compromising your own views."

I was unclear earlier, and I shall try to clarify. I don't take issue with people respecting opposing opinions. I take issue with people trying to merge opposing opinions in an attempt to appease everyone.

Okay, that makes sense, that you shouldn't merge opinions. I thought that you were criticizing respecting others opinions when you said:

"Let's not be like those annoying Facebook friends who jump into comment wars by saying 'Can't we all get along? There are legitimate points to be made on both sides.' "

I guess it was a misunderstanding. I think most of us can agree that there's nothing wrong with staying firm in your beliefs, and that there's also nothing wrong with respecting others opinions.

"morally coherent" does not sway left or right in a centered society. It pulls the society back to center, if anything.

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

/older than you
//not older than your parents

Goldie. That's what you should do. Buy some rubles. That should work well for you

Here's an update:
http://bit.ly/1w9hLtc

" "morally coherent" does not sway left or right in a centered society. It pulls the society back to center, if anything."

Political opinions that all form from a unifying princple or set of principles will be firmly away from the centre, save for the theme of "centrism" which is in this present moment poorly defined. In the absence of a clear definition, I shall continue to view centrism as a grab-bag of various opinions informed by different ideologies. This makes centrism morally incoherent.

@goldfinger that doesn't look like a very good deal considering that Russia's inflation rate is 11.4 percent. Does it account for inflation?

goldfinger, what treasury rate is 2.4%. not the 10 year

I think that by "morally coherent" pangloss means a view that has a solid basis. One that, based on the person's viewpoints, isn't contradictory. My viewpoint is based around the idea that people should be responsible for their own decisions, without the government getting in the way except to give some gentle regulations (i.e. cut down on crime and encourage charity).

And I think that by "centrism" the idea is a lack of "extreme" policies, and where the main value isn't liberty (like me), equality (like US liberals), or a code of morality (like conservatives), but cooperation. Working together and finding common ground. Being willing to compromise if it means actually getting something done.

No I checked, it does not include inflation.
Note to self: dont put money in Russian banks

Agreed with LeinadT. Compromise is a necessity in my eyes.

@LeinadT, that is essentially what I mean by "morally coherent".

@TrPrado, I see no reason to hold compromise in high regard. It is an unfortunate short-term political necessity in some cases and has a crippling effect on the advancement of one's political movement.

What I'm fundamentally reading from pangloss: "Sure, we're fine with gridlock. It's cool as long as the other side doesn't get their way."

Yeah, I know that's what you mean. I was trying to clarify that for TrPrado, and clarify "centrist" for you.

@TrPrado, I don't particularly like the American political system, but my view that centrism is silly definitely applies in this case. The two major parties are "big-tent" parties--that is to say, they cater to wide swaths of the American populace. They represent a variety of political views that sweep across the right and the far-right of the political spectrum. This is a clear example of centrism: a "cooperation", if you will, between various people with assorted political views to "get something done".

But gridlock in Congress comes from the fact that Republicans and Democrats both try to appeal to overlapping cross-sections of Americans as they seek to differentiate themselves from each other. It is not the differences between the parties that make their folly--it is their similarities. To wit, in other countries, the communist party tends not to take any votes away from Christian democrats, and vice versa. Yet in the US of A, it's not uncommon to see someone switch from Republican to Democrat and back again. The battles between the parties are not a result of mutual hatred of policy positions but mutual recognition that they seek the same constituencies.

To assert that gridlock in Congress is a result of purity of political principle is foolish at best and deceitful at worst.

If you're not happy with this example, consider the fact that you'll never see so much vitriol and hatred as at a political party's internal policy meetings. In-fighting amongst socialists, liberals, conservatives, or any other political stripe happens all the time and is often more heated as the involved people have more and more in common.

Gridlock in Congress is systemic. It's not ideological.

When each major party controls one half of our bicameral legislature, almost nothing gets done. This is not a matter of political principle, but political pragmatism at its worst. Don't let the other guy win anything now when we can punt the issue down the road and pass some legislation and make some political gains when we control both halves of Congress.

It is actually pretty uncommon to see someone switch from Democrat to Republican and back again. Once locked in, voters don't change party registration, though they may on rare occasion decide not to vote straight party ticket.

Battles between the parties *are* a result of mutual hatred of policy decisions. We have a handful of social "wedge issues" such as firearms, abortion, religion, LGBT rights, which drive most of our political discourse.

When it comes to money however, most of the electorate doesn't want to take the time to understand the issues, other than "services good, taxes bad." In that respect, you might say they appeal to overlapping cross-sections. However, it's less of a positive appeal than a negative attack on the opponents.

I'll also disagree with your assertion about "vitriol and hatred...at a political party's internal policy meetings." This happens only when one faction or another tries to *change* policy. This does happen from time to time, but only around the margins. The Tea Party is trying to shake things up, but that's a very recent phenomenon, more of a flash in the pan funded by the Koch brothers. They'll be all gone come 2016 because the stakes will be too high with a presidential election that doesn't feature a relatively popular incumbent.

"It is actually pretty uncommon to see someone switch from Democrat to Republican and back again. Once locked in, voters don't change party registration, though they may on rare occasion decide not to vote straight party ticket."

I speak mostly from my own experiences with Americans; perhaps you know better. At any rate, I think your assessment is a more depressing version of the American body politic because it means a small minority of fickle swing voters are the cross-section that both major parties seek to gain and thus have all the power. However, this does not disprove my argument that the root of gridlock in Congress is the need for two similar parties to appeal to a shared constituency.

"Battles between the parties *are* a result of mutual hatred of policy decisions. We have a handful of social "wedge issues" such as firearms, abortion, religion, LGBT rights, which drive most of our political discourse."

Because Republicans and Democrats are big-tent parties, there is no complete uniformity across their respective membership. In fact, I bet there are a number of Democrats who oppose LGBT rights and a number of Republicans who support abortion. But the leadership will turn up the rhetoric to fire up the "base" of people who are generally unwilling to change and to emphasise the differences between these parties. How meaningfully different are the resultant votes in Congress? For example, I don't think I would be able to tell the partisanship of a given Congressman if he gave me his stance on gun control.

"I'll also disagree with your assertion about "vitriol and hatred...at a political party's internal policy meetings." This happens only when one faction or another tries to *change* policy. This does happen from time to time, but only around the margins. The Tea Party is trying to shake things up, but that's a very recent phenomenon, more of a flash in the pan funded by the Koch brothers. They'll be all gone come 2016 because the stakes will be too high with a presidential election that doesn't feature a relatively popular incumbent."

To be sure, a number of policy meetings will be hugfests--especially after an electoral victory. However, there will always be a faction that tries to change something at a policy meeting, and it's spectacular to watch the resulting fireworks. As for the Tea Party, I don't much care for their electoral successes or failures, but the fact that they can show up and very quickly gather support for themselves is a statement in itself. Sure, they're funded by the Koch brothers (or so Aaron Sorkin says), but the Koch brothers needed to have people to give money to. They didn't create the Tea Party, they merely gave it a voice.

"I speak mostly from my own experiences with Americans; perhaps you know better. At any rate, I think your assessment is a more depressing version of the American body politic because it means a small minority of fickle swing voters are the cross-section that both major parties seek to gain and thus have all the power." Jeff is right. I think it amounts to 3% of voters last I checked.
"For example, I don't think I would be able to tell the partisanship of a given Congressman if he gave me his stance on gun control." But you COULD tell his stance on gun-control policy, and in which direction he'll vote with such legislation.
My AP Gov teacher blamed the American voter for showing parties that compromise gets them voted out for the gridlock. I agree. And, honestly, doesn't compromise end or slow down gridlock?

"But you COULD tell his stance on gun-control policy, and in which direction he'll vote with such legislation."

I *might* be able to tell you his general stance on gun control policy prior to visits from various lobbying groups and before an actual bill is tabled. After such events, all bets are off. But I still would have trouble clearly identifying him as a Republican or a Democrat.

"My AP Gov teacher blamed the American voter for showing parties that compromise gets them voted out for the gridlock. I agree. And, honestly, doesn't compromise end or slow down gridlock?"

Yes, the purpose of your political system is to force compromise. As such, it is working precisely as it is intended to. On the other hand, a majority or coalition parliament would end gridlock much sooner.

I still see no reason to regard centrism or compromise as ideals to aspire to.

A coalition government definitively involves compromise.

"At any rate, I think your assessment is a more depressing version of the American body politic because it means a small minority of fickle swing voters are the cross-section that both major parties seek to gain and thus have all the power. However, this does not disprove my argument that the root of gridlock in Congress is the need for two similar parties to appeal to a shared constituency."

Perhaps, but our electorate grows more polarized each year. Most of the major issues have been sorted out, so most people naturally gravitate toward one party or the other because they have fairly cohesive messages. Nonetheless, the share of people who are neither Democrat nor Republican also grows each year, primarily due to dissatisfaction with both parties, not as a matter of ideological differences, but as a matter of disgust.

"Because Republicans and Democrats are big-tent parties, there is no complete uniformity across their respective membership."

There is moreso than you might think. Sure, there are a handful of people in any group who will hold beliefs outside the norm. That number is shrinking each year though. There hasn't been a mass mobilization of the United States which led to a great shared common experience since World War II. Vietnam came close, but the culture wars of the 60s, including preferential treatment with respect to selective service/"the draft", shattered any semblance of cohesion, never mind that there was never a declaration of war, so we technically never lost the "police action." We've had generations now for the Dems and Reps to grow further apart.

As for "big tent", that used to be true, but now it's just a catch phrase both parties use to try and make them seem appealing to a wider audience, though their positions are set in stone.

"How meaningfully different are the resultant votes in Congress? For example, I don't think I would be able to tell the partisanship of a given Congressman if he gave me his stance on gun control."

I kind of think you would, though gun control might be the most difficult to distinguish because the second amendment has broad political support. Every so often the leaders of congress throw up test votes for their caucuses. These votes, especially in times of gridlock, are not intended to actually pass. However, they do two things: 1) give friendly politicians a chance to vote their conscience so they can campaign on that issue with their constituents come election time, and 2) force opponents to vote against the legislation, again to campaign on the position during the next election.

One thing that I will say though is that our system is strictly first-past-the-post by district. We don't apportion any seats via proportional representation which are then handed out to party hardliners. I'd say that type of system creates more intraparty vitriol and hatred because there is jockeying for position for a prized seats in parliament. In the United States, we re-elected 96.4% of our Congressional representatives. That's because our districts are by and large set up to give a huge advantage to the incumbents due to widespread gerrymandering, especially so after the 2010 census and ensuing redistricting.

I do feel some sympathy for the "fickle swing voters" though, especially if they live in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina or Colorado. That very small sliver is really bombarded with political advertisements and mailers during presidential elections.

"A coalition government definitively involves compromise."

Of course it does. Any political action requires some form of compromise. This does not make it desirable. Additionally, coalition governments can only occur in multi-party systems where there can be numerous options for compromise (and thus competition between interested parties to come to a compromise as close as possible to the foundational principles of each party). In the USA, there is only one option for a compromise, and this gives immense power to the opposition party.

@Jeff Kuta, as different as you claim the two parties are, they will still have relatively close political positions. The primary reason for this is that both have fundamentally accepted capitalism (not necessarily a bad thing for economic policy but certainly bad for political discourse). This means that their economic platforms might differ, but that this will only be a difference of degrees. Social "wedge" issues will always play a part of their defining features because there is little else that is *fundamentally* different between them. These issues will rise and fall over time, but I don't see them radically altering the economic base of each party's belief.

I have no doubt that there are a number of problems with the American political system and I have no doubt that it has a number of redeeming features. We have drifted far from our original topic of political centrism, though. I am largely to blame for that, but I would like to shift back.

I still see no compelling reason to hold compromise or centrism as desirable ideals for any political person.