Log in

View Full Version : Statistics



PoliticalNightmare
20th November 2010, 14:53
Hi. I'm looking for some statistics to back up some of my arguments:

*Minimum wage does not increase unemployment

*State intervention and the capitalisation of cheap labour (sweatshops) overseas has seen a decrease in living standards abroad.

*Free market economies such as Great Britain, the US, etc. prosper and generally have higher living standards now than before due to their exploitation of labour in third world countries.

*Free market economies don't generally have great standards of living particularly among the working classes: the social division is as high as ever.

*That socialist measures such as free education, minimum wage and basic working condition laws have improved living standards particularly in "free market" economies.

*That the EU wastes thousands of tonnes of food every year.

*That economic, social and environmental issues such as the Nigerian Oil Spills, the BP disasater, the Bhopal Carbonicide Leaks and the EU being so wasteful, etc., are not just a result of corporatism: they are a result of the free market as well.

*That anarchist societies such as Catolonia '36 have been the most successful with the highest social mobility.

*That just because a country is wealthy doesn't mean everyone is more prosperous (including the poor people).

*That in the UK and US spending cuts aren't necessary or that they are necessary but they could hit the rich a lot harder.

*That competition as a result of privatisation does not increase living standards and why.

*That tax cuts to the rich do not necessarily improve the services that their business provide to society: that the profit incentive argument is rubbish.

*That the economic calculation debate is flawed and that under socialism, we would be effectively be able to calculate the value of goods.

Cheers.

*Edit: Just thought of another one - "The British Monarchy does not bring in more money than tourism".

*And another one - the majority of the British/American Government's spending was wasteful (e.g. politician's expenses, etc.) rather than constructive (social welfare, etc.) and that the recession was primarily the fault of a lack of government regulation in the banking industry rather than over-spending and nationalisation of trade.

The Count
20th November 2010, 17:57
One thing you might want to reconsider is calling "Great Britain, the US, etc." free market systems. They may have had free market Capitalism a couple hundred years ago (in Marx's time), but certainly not now. Free market Capitalism is when there's barely any or no government interference in the economy, with little to no labour laws (minimum wage, bans on child labour, etc.). In the countries mentioned above, the government plays an incredibly active role in the economy; they give subsidies to corporations, bail them out if they're in trouble, and sometimes even take total control of them (such as Fannie May & Freddie Mac in the United States). This is why such nations should be called Corporatist, rather than free market Capitalist.

That said, I'll help you out with a few of your arguments:


*That just because a country is wealthy doesn't mean everyone is more prosperous (including the poor people).This can easily be seen in tons of nations around the world; this graph measures income inequality:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg

If you look at South Africa in particular, you can see that it is in the highest category of income disparity. It has the largest economy in Africa with a GDP/capita of $10,243, yet the unemployment rate is 25% and the same amount of people live on less than $1.25 USD/day. About 80% of the nation is identified as "black Africans", yet the 10% minority of white people in the country made on average 6x income/year than the black African majority in 2000 (after the end of Apartheid).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa
You can check out the citations in order to get a more credible source for the statistics if needed.

Here's another source regarding poverty rates in the United States, the holder of the world's largest economy:
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp


*That socialist measures such as free education, minimum wage and basic working condition laws have improved living standards particularly in "free market" economies.I think nearly everyone, including hardcore Capitalists, would agree with this one. Universal primary education was already adopted by nations such as Prussia and the United States during the first half of the 19th century. Universal primary education had a huge impact on the literacy rates of Europe; in Britain, the percentage of grooms unable to sign at marriage fell from 30% in the 1840s to less than 1% in 1914.

Source: The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain by Roderick Floud
http://books.google.ca/books?id=jnDA4vY9kFEC&pg=PT69&lpg=PT69&dq=universal+primary+education+in+britain&source=bl&ots=qrtzcpPlYs&sig=1YNPQKkbFR1aVbu-0nP1DaTd4Nw&hl=en&ei=UQjoTO79Oc2YnAePtL2UDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=universal%20primary%20education%20in%20britain&f=false


*That the EU wastes thousands of tonnes of food every year.6.7 million tonnes of food are wasted every year in the UK alone; I was unable to find statistics on the European Union as a whole.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_waste
Once again, you can check citations.

The other site I listed as resource for your first argument (http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp) also contains information about wasted food in the United States.

I hope you find some of this useful! :)

PoliticalNightmare
20th November 2010, 18:25
One thing you might want to reconsider is calling "Great Britain, the US, etc." free market systems. They may have had free market Capitalism a couple hundred years ago (in Marx's time), but certainly not now. Free market Capitalism is when there's barely any or no government interference in the economy, with little to no labour laws (minimum wage, bans on child labour, etc.). In the countries mentioned above, the government plays an incredibly active role in the economy; they give subsidies to corporations, bail them out if they're in trouble, and sometimes even take total control of them (such as Fannie May & Freddie Mac in the United States). This is why such nations should be called Corporatist, rather than free market Capitalist.

I know. What I should have said was freer market economies. I was just trying to avoid being overly pedantic but thank you and thanks for the rest of the post - I will read it in a second.

The Count
27th November 2010, 00:50
I'm surprised that I'm the only person who has taken the time to respond to this topic. If we were to collect statistical support for these arguments, it could be a great resource for us all.

¿Que?
27th November 2010, 05:07
I would, except I'm really busy at the moment, and it's not my area of expertise.