Does a left right political spectrum make sense?

That the left to right political spectrum is problematic is not a novel thought.   Like any map, model or abbreviation, it leaves out important details and is an extremely simplified depiction of an infinitely complex subject, political economy, or types of social and economic construct.  Over the years academics and others have come up with slightly more complicated models which are far more representative of the range of ideas and illustrative of how they relate.  There's a nice article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Regardless, for at least a century through the end of the Cold War, it was a relatively useful shorthand.  It let someone know where one stood roughly on a broad spectrum of issues, from foreign policy, economic policy, and regarding social norms.  Roughly, in western countries,  the left favored a dovish foreign policy, an interventionist, redistributive economic policy, and to either overturn or moderate traditional societal values, regarding race and sexuality respectively.  Right-wingers were hawkish, less inclined to intervene in the economy, and thought societal relations were more or less OK; if they weren't it was because the should be more like they had been at some point past.  Very approximate, but a reasonable starting point for understanding and hashing out a view.

Since the end of the Cold war, this rough approximation has become nonsensical.  Though what passes for or self describes as left is generally more dovish than their right wing counterparts, since the end of the cold war they have supported or called for interventions in the Balkans, North Africa, and Afghanistan.  Though the left remains committed to economic intervention and control, they have been joined by much of the right, with the neocon Bush administration intervening in the market to save it from itself, and increasing skepticism regarding free trade from both major political parties.

Demographic changes and the latest recession, the deepest since the WWII, have engendered a populist view in which an interventionist and trade restricting take on economic policy is not incompatible with a traditionalist take on societal and family norms.  Many on the right see little benefit in foreign trade and want to take it to elites, especially to Wall Street, which they may view (with some justification) as an extension of the government.

What to make of so called neo-cons?  From their Trotskyist roots, they have kept much of the framework of their original worldview.  Believing that individual prerogatives should be subsumed to the cause of national greatness and that a separate morality is applicable to elites, (echos of the role of the Party as vanguard for the people,) they are thoroughly illiberal.  In keeping with the subordination of the individual and to further national grandeur, they embrace "big government conservatism" (their phrase) and have little hesitation in expanding the role of the state in all aspects of the economy and society.

In all, if someone tells you they are left or right, they explain less than ever about where they may stand on the issues of the day.  A liberal could want more trade or less, to bomb the hell out of Quadaffi or not,while a conservative might want to "glassify" the middle east, or to withdraw the troops and just obliterate Wall Street.

Is there a better short hand we could use to make our generalizations more meaningful and relevant?

A more useful spectrum might be from a more individualistic and freedom oriented pole, with an emphasis on the rule of law to a collectivist, egalitarian and outcomes oriented spectrum.  (about from lower left to upper right on the Nolan graph).   It's tempting to set up a political spectrum which really ends up reading as from good to bad from one direction to another, but these are legitimate conflicting values for a society and for the political spectrum to address.

What's Money?

There are few subjects money has not part of.  From the personal to the geopolitical, it's often related to whatever topic,  but a good definition is less obvious than one might initially think.

The Onion memorably had a pretty interesting definition-. "A symbolic mutually shared illusion" which they further describe as "a meaningless and intangible social construct" here:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-economy-grinds-to-halt-as-nation-realizes-money,2912/

Maybe that turns out to be the case.  If not, maybe the question of what the definition of money is could be rephrased slightly, to be "What's it supposed to be?  What would we want the definition of money to be?"

The best I've found, which jibes pretty closely with what I've had in mind is here:
best found online - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

It's a three part definition (Wikipedia has a fourth part I'm trying to understand better, it seems like debt)

It should be a medium of exchange, a measure of value and a store of value.
- A medium of exchange - So someone with a spare cows who needs a rug doesn't need to find someone else with an extra rug looking for a cow, or to set up a daisy chain of exchanges to get to him.  To serve this purpose it should be widely accepted and practical, available in useable increments and forms.  What might only be a medium of exchange?  Ski ball tickets. (still exist?)  Not a good store of value and a worse measure, they are practical and accepted in exchange for overpriced junk.
- Measure of value - To compare apples and oranges on equal terms, serving as a common denominator for anything one might spend for.  What might serve this purpose and not the other two?  A bond rating, which (at least theoretically) puts at least somewhat unlike, opaque things on a clear scale and provides a shorthand basis for comparison.
- Store of value - So users can preserve your buying power, time purchases as needed at make long term plans regarding investments and spending, the later function making this arguably the most important function money can serve.  What's only a store?  Diamonds are one of the most concentrated and historically consistent stores of value, but they are not fungible, and their uniqueness also makes them a poor medium exchange.

A modern, complex society without money meeting the above criteria cannot function, or at least has not yet done so.  Those whose money has ceased to perform these functions have fallen into various degrees of collapse.  Historically, it has been the third part of the definition which has been undermined political forces which perceive advantage in doing so.  Off the top of my head, this has happened in modern history to Germany, Hungary, Brazil, Argentina, Serbia and Zimbabwe.  In each instance, dramatic debasement has precipitated or exacerbated societal collapse.  Any institution responsible for a county's money whose product fails to meet at least this definition over time isn't doing its job.

Why am I doing this?

This blog is meant as a place for me to try to get a better grip on my own understanding of various things by trying to write them down in a reasonably organized, coherent way.  Topics will likely include current events, modern history, a dilettante's take on markets, and maybe, occasionally some car stuff.

One question I've increasingly asked myself is why should one care?  Not about this blog or my opinion on anything, but about politics in general, about the big picture issues which so many, (myself included,) have strong but inconsequential opinions?  Why should someone who doesn't have, and is unlikely to have any power regarding these things, (myself included), bother caring?  Plenty address this pretty simply: they don't, and that's that, but millions who more or less fit the above description do.  Don't believe it?  Next time your out at a bar or a big dinner or something, make a point of mentioning how great (or terrible) the AFL-CIO, Barrack Obama or Ronald Reagan is.  People don't get that pissed off because they don't care, so the question stands.

I'm reminded of the joke, in which a housewife explains to her friend, that the husband makes all the big decisions and she makes the small ones: to paraphrase, he decides on how to fix the deficit, achieve peace in the middle east, what Fed policy should be, and she decides where they should live, what schools the kids should attend, how to dispose of the family budget, etc.  So to some extent, it could be a pointless, somewhat narcissistic indulgence.

There's always the Civics 101 argument, that in a democracy, an informed electorate is critical so you have to pay attention.  True in theory, unlikely in fact.  Your vote, as an individual, doesn't really matter.  In your in a gerrymandered district, many voters will likely make their determination based on news from the past few months if independent or based on party affiliation if not.  Odds that your single vote tips the scales in a major election are probably about the same as winning the lottery three times in a row.

Some of this stuff (politics, current events, modern history) is inherently interesting of course.  These are events and decisions that impact millions, often profoundly.  But many of the issues of the day can also be pretty eye-glazing stuff, even when the implications are profound; take, for example, entitlement reform.

I think people care about recent history and current politics in largely because doing so requires an understanding of how things were, how things are, and how things should be.  Explicitly or implicitly, this is the framework for any opinion on or understanding of current events.  One's knowledge and previous analyses, but also values and biases come into play in setting up that framework before even considering  specific question.  That framework, in turn, has to do with who we are, which is ultimately  why many (myself included) care.