What is the science behind left wing people being generally losers?

Defining someone making less than $50k as a loser is moronic.

>Defining someone making less than $50k as a loser is moronic.
50k is below the GDP per capita of the US.So most people under 50k,are just starting their careers,or done pretty poorly in their careers.

so if tomorrow you lose your job, you're a loser? K, good to know. At least we see who votes for romney and drumpf.

>so if tomorrow you lose your job, you're a loser?
I doubt that most Obongo supporters were just fired before the election.

>people who are capable of projecting in the future and caring about others are losers
You can't fake being this retarded.

>people who are capable of projecting in the future
Have you seen the stats?Only single mothers and welfare queens voted democrat.
>And caring about others are losers
Poor conservatives donate more money than rich liberals.The greedy people are usually democrats that just vote to get welfare

yeah, and those who vote to keep their privilege and enslave others are not greedy at all.

Look at that, it looks like everyone votes for their best interest, shocker!

Countries are too big, and this is proof of it. If everyone doesn't agree about how a country should be run, it's probably better to divide it.

>and those who vote to keep their privilege and enslave others are not greedy at all.
No one is slaving anyone.
>Look at that, it looks like everyone votes for their best interest, shocker!
So the interest of democrats is the interest of losers
>Countries are too big, and this is proof of it. If everyone doesn't agree about how a country should be run, it's probably better to divide it.
I would be fine with this,as only dumb people would be on the lefties side.

>No one is slaving anyone.

I'm not that user, however...

We live in a system of credit and debt.

In order to make money you need people indebted to you.

If there is a significant disparity of wealth, then those at the top will have accumulated their wealth on the backs of debtors.

A significant disparity of wealth can only exist in the presence of economic slavery for the majority.

My family is wealthy, so I’m not some lefty SJW wank puffin; I just understand how the system works and it happens to benefit me, at the expense of the majority.

Hence, I get to be a NEET who spends most of his time reading and thinking.

For now at least… I reckon I’ll get cut off for failing to function in society.

>We live in a system of credit and debt.
Partially
>In order to make money you need people indebted to you.
Not really.People are usually indebted to banks.
>A significant disparity of wealth can only exist in the presence of economic slavery for the majority.
No.This is just false

see

>Scientific question
>pol

So what are the policies of Obama and Romney? Why is Obama left and Romney right? In Europe it's usually wealthy and educated voting for liberal free market approach with okay welfare and progressive ideologies, while the other spectrum votes for nationalistic parties that swing wildly with their economics but are ideologically conservative.

I'll save you some trouble because you clearly don't even understand basic policy issues.

Tax cuts are the main reason people vote republican along with being pro life. Was it that hard, faggot?

>Partially

Give me one example to the contrary.

>People are usually indebted to banks.

Banks owned by people.

>This is just false

Provide one example of a capitalist nation with a significant wealth disparity, that doesn't have a high degree of consumer debt.

>Give me one example to the contrary.
Inheritances and savings are still viable to build a patrimony
>Banks owned by people.
Still rich people don't own most of the debt as you were claiming
>Provide one example of a capitalist nation with a significant wealth disparity, that doesn't have a high degree of consumer debt.
That is not what you said.And again,most debt is created by banks opening accounts.Even countries with low wealth disparity has this banking system

>liberal free market
In the US is called libertarian.The most uneducated parties in Europe are the social democratic ones and the national socialistic.Still proves that only losers vote to the economic left

>Inheritances and savings

Where does the wealth for the inheritance and savings originate?

Plus, savings are subject to interest, which is debt owed to the investor for the use of their wealth as credit.

>Still rich people don't own most of the debt as you were claiming

To operate within the oversimplified paradigm that you set forward:

If banks own most of the debt and banks are owned by wealthy individuals, then those wealthy individuals own most of the debt.

>Even countries with low wealth disparity has this banking system

Provide one example.

That was your task.

Maybe. I don't notice it with social democracies though. Most of them seem to be just dying out of ruling for too long. Pro EU approach is definitely more popular among educated and wealthy though, even Brexit polls showed it.

>Where does the wealth for the inheritance and savings originate?
Work,debt or investing.
>savings are subject to interest
You can put all your savings into gold or other investments to stop its depreciation
>banks are owned by wealthy individuals
Banks have lots of share holders.You oversimplified to much.Even then, the wealthiest people in the world arent bankers
>Provide one example.
With no debt? None.Still places like Lichestein or Panama have no central bank.Which is one of the main sources of debt schemes

>Pro EU approach is definitely more popular among educated and wealthy though, even Brexit polls showed it.
No.Young people had a super low turnout,so it was mostly a bullshit stadistic,as most young people didnt vote.And again education=/=success

I don't think you can easily say that if only 30%-40% of young people voted, then the young can't be said to be pro-some option. Might as well say that Britain didn't want to exit since account for voter turnout most didn't want to leave. There was also correlation between median earnings in a region and their vote, wealthier ones were pro EU. Same with education.

And we aren't talking about success here. There isn't any decent definition of success you can make. Education generally equals better competences and intelligence. Might as well also discredit the wealthy saying that inheritance of money and luck =/= competence.

>Might as well say that Britain didn't want to exit since account for voter turnout most didn't want to leave
If they didnt vote was their choice.That doesnt mean that the youth voted remain.The youth mostly didnt vote

>Work

Labour for financial credits.

>Debt

Yes.

>investing

Up - you are owed debt

Down - you owe debt/lose everything

>You can put all your savings into gold or other investments to stop its depreciation

You still have to accumulate the wealth in the first place.

>the wealthiest people in the world arent bankers

I agree, however banks do not own the majority of the world's debt, as you claimed.

Then Britain didn't vote leave. Fucking polls are about interviewing only a % of the voters anyway.

>Labour for financial credits.
Salaries arent debts
>Up - you are owed debt
>Down - you owe debt/lose everything
You dont owe debt if you lose.
>You still have to accumulate the wealth in the first place.
And wealth can be created through a salary
>I agree, however banks do not own the majority of the world's debt, as you claimed.
Banks own most of the debt.

>Then Britain didn't vote leave
Yes,becase turnout is the only thing that matters.But inside the youth,most people didnt vote.This is not difficult to get

The fact that they didn't vote doesn't really discredit the fact that those who did were pro EU.

>Salaries arent debts

Salaries are debts for labour.

>You dont owe debt if you lose.

If you invest on margin, which the majority of investors do, then you absolutely can and do.

>And wealth can be created through a salary

Where does the salary come from?

>Banks own most of the debt.

They appear to, on paper.

However, debt is chopped up into financial instruments that are then sold on to third parties.

Banks may appear to own most of the debt, however that debt is used for the basis of speculation that allows for such a disparity of wealth.

>The fact that they didn't vote doesn't really discredit the fact that those who did were pro EU.
Yes,still most didnt vote

>Salaries are debts for labour.
No.
>Where does the salary come from?
Work/entrpreneuership/freelancing
>They appear to, on paper.
And in reality.Credit cars run purely on banks,and are based on debt.Most mortages are owned by banks.
>However, debt is chopped up into financial instruments that are then sold on to third parties.
Still most debt is owned by banks.

Doesn't change the main point.

Ok bye.

Mormons that voted for Obama are like blacks who voted for Romney

you're unaware of your own cancer and it's amusing

>you're unaware of your own cancer and it's amusing

This is politics, not science. There are no tested and peer reviewed papers about the the causes of left and right wing voters. If you want to suggest a hypothesis, post it then show your evidence.

Sorry I can't hear you behind that wall bronyfag. Just stay in your loser corner there

ITT:
/pol/ wants to start a discussion on economics

sadly, econ is not a real science, but rather a meme.

>what is the science

This is more math here than science op, look at the demographics and mentally estimate their respective populations and sects.

And if you are >> 8182551 also then it would make sense fiscally. Generally tax allocation has a lot to do with the interests and benefits to each corresponding side.

>Europe
>nationalistic parties
Are you from a different universe?

The left may be characterized by a desire to alter or replace existing power structures and the right may be characterized by a desire to preserve them. In this way losers lean left. By the definition of the word loser, the status quo has little to offer to losers.