I dunno i read all those graphs and think.
Well there was a lot of banking deregulation from 1971 onwards?
Let's give that bank regulation idea another shot maybe - it can't do worse.
. . .but then i also think - good on china for that one child policy.
I'm just not getting anywhere near the Hayeck conclusion from the same data.
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 6 months ago
What take? It is just a bunch of graphs.
This may be the first time I’ve seen anybody say that facts have a libertarian bias.
That is not the way I read the data.
I see the boomers hitting the labor market and people with capital getting rich off the depressed price of labor.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
It’s a common homepage linked by libertarians in an argument.
Also: read the Hayek quote at the end. This homepage tries to sell youesomething and it an’t graphs.
orrk@lemmy.world 6 months ago
ah ya, “facts”, sure many of these graphs can be based on real data, hell maybe even all of them, but then you take a step back and look at these graphes, are the fun arrows and lines at 1971 actually meaningful? or are they there to try and use the data to shape an opinion? taking advantage of the average person’s statistic illiteracy, to push some form of partisan agenda?
such as the first graph, we have a nice little arrow and a dot with the number 90.84% but the actual diverging of the variables doesn’t start until later, when exactly? you can’t tell because the graph only labels three data points on the X axis!, and this isn’t the only deliberately misleading graph here, that the authors are using to openly lie about the data to those who aren’t well versed in this stuff.
facts don’t have a Libertarian Bias, but Libertarians sure are prone to spreading lies.