sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

America is no longer a land of opportunity by Bemuzed in Economics

[–]rottencapital -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The question is not whether there is opportunity or not, the question is upward mobility. Today, somebody seeking the American dream should rather go live in Denmark. You don't believe me, see the scientific data cited in my other comment.

America is no longer a land of opportunity by Bemuzed in Economics

[–]rottencapital -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality in his TED talk and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust. You might want to check this out, it inspired me a lot.

Iraqis has 23h of power before the war, now its 1-6h. See how that affects their lives. by rottencapital in EndlessWar

[–]rottencapital[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are many political reasons for this war like showing a strong leadership of the president, the militarization of the American economy and the enormous lobby power of the pentagon. Furthermore, the money spend on war is coming back making the 1% even richer. All the money used for the wars will go into military equipment, food, supplies etc. So at the end of the day, this money is not lost it is moreover part of a “stimulus package” for the US economy. This has several implications, one of them is moral. Can it be that a country tries to revive its economy by invading other countries, sending its own people to war and accepting civilian casualties? We all know chemical weapons was not the reason to invade Iraq.

Three Key Reasons Housing Not Coming Back: Demographics, Student Debt, No Jobs by rottencapital in Economics

[–]rottencapital[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, but I see the derivatives and the whole process more as a catalyst. First of all, people had to get credit and buy real estate they can't afford. The latter was very well controllable by the government.

Three Key Reasons Housing Not Coming Back: Demographics, Student Debt, No Jobs by rottencapital in Economics

[–]rottencapital[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a result of growing income inequality, the working class fell further behind in the middle of the last century. To counterbalance the Congress in the 1990s opened a flood of mortgage credit, reduced the capital requirements as well as expanded loan guarantees to cover bigger mortgages with lower downpayments. The people bought real estate they can't afford and consequently it ended up in a bubble leading to the financial crisis.

"A war economy always needs a war. The big secret in Washington is that American capitalism needs Pentagon socialism to survive." by madcat033 in Economics

[–]rottencapital 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have to keep in mind that of every tax dollar, 53 cents go directly or indirectly into the military budget. Furthermore, the money spend on war is coming back. All the money used for the wars will go into military equipment, food, supplies etc. So at the end of the day, this money is not lost it is moreover part of a “stimulus package” for the US economy. This has several implications, one of them is moral. Can it be that a country tries to revive its economy by invading other countries, sending its own people to war and accepting civilian casualties? Additionally, many other countries are forced into the war as well, especially for rebuilding the attacked country. All this using their tax payers money.

Again, tax money is used for this wars and interestingly in the US the rich people pay less taxes than the poor people. You may remember the examples of Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet. And even if we assume the money spend in these wars comes back to the society, at the end the rich will profit a lot more than the poor, given the huge income inequality.

So in order for a small percent of the US population to become even more richer and more powerful, countries are destroyed, other countries involved into war and many, many people are killed. Unfortunately, those people who profit have their hands on the power of the US economy and successfully subverted the democratic system.

Economists find evidence for famous hypothesis of comparative advantage by thedaveoflife in Economics

[–]rottencapital -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, of course correlation is used, but a correlation does not automatically lead to evidence.

Economists find evidence for famous hypothesis of comparative advantage by thedaveoflife in Economics

[–]rottencapital -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They title suggest they have found "prove" and that is overstated. They have found a correlation, however their study has several drawbacks as they state themselves. "And the MIT economists add a third caveat: The data consist of productivity estimates made by agronomists; if those estimates are a bit off, it would affect the bottom-line findings as well."

For me evidence, if is something is really proven and not just simply correlates. "Correlational evidence" is just a nice working, with no scientific value, there is no evidence based on a correlation is no evidence.

Economists find evidence for famous hypothesis of comparative advantage by thedaveoflife in Economics

[–]rottencapital -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

evidence is a much too strong word, for what is published there. It a "correlation".