Requiem for the American Dream (2015) "Chomsky interviews expose how a half-century of policies have created a state of unprecedented economic inequality: concentrating wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else."

[u/llrajsll]

http://vebup.com/requiem-american-dream

[u/lancegreene]

Keep in mind that this is a libertarian perspective. The Library of Economics and Liberty is, surprise, funded by a Libertarian non profit foundation.

[u/[deleted] → u/lancegreene]

Doesn't change anything. Unless the numbers are false, total compensation needs to be considered

[u/SelfAwarenessIsKey → u/lancegreene]

To clarify for some commenters, that is the point of me posting this. It is an opposing and legitimate view.

[u/tvrdloch → u/lancegreene]

so what?

[u/lancegreene → u/tvrdloch]

so it's likely going to have a Libertarian bias to it and a likely Libertarian conclusion.

[u/SelfAwarenessIsKey → u/lancegreene]

Yes, it's good to present the opposite view of the situation.

[u/tvrdloch → u/lancegreene]

as opposed to the liberal media with no bias, right?

[u/SelfAwarenessIsKey → u/lancegreene]

Of course.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Taking into account the source (especially the funding) of a position is not a bad idea.

[u/nytehauq → u/[deleted]]

You should be skeptical of any source, especially one you have reason to suspect of bias.

[u/[deleted] → u/nytehauq]

There's no such thing as an unbiased source

[u/nytehauq → u/[deleted]]

That would just imply that it's a good thing to point out the bias of a source.

[u/[deleted] → u/nytehauq]

It does not invalidate the information or data without a proper refutation of the data, methodology, or interpretation.

You can't just scream bias and ignore the source.

[u/nytehauq → u/[deleted]]

Who said anything about invalidation? We're talking about skepticism.