I'm puzzled by Andrew Philpott Morgan's points about economic and social
statistics.
First on a matter of language. Why are economic statistics described as
'wealth-generating'? Economic statistics measure the level of activity in the
formal economy of money transactions. Money is not the same as wealth.
Thatcher attempted to equate wealth creation with the money economy in support
of market oriented policies. But wealth is a broad concept. Many of the most
important forms of wealth - human capital, education, social and democratic
institutions, etc., etc. have little direct connection the formal economy.as
defined by economic statistics.
Second, what is the evidence that economic statistics has been given priority
over 'wealth-absorbing' (what on earth does that mean?) social statistics?
Surely the main growth in recent decades has been in survey statistics - LFS,
BCS, FRS, health surveys, etc.??
But let me bring the subject matter back to migration.. Those who produce
inflated estimates of immigration are labelled as right wing. So what is the
reasonable, left-wing, politically correct position?
What kind of methods are advocated for the production of better estimates of
immigration statistics? Or is the case for immigration so strong that we
should not have statistics - becasue they will just be misused by the right
wingk press?
Ray Thomas, Faculty of Social Sciences
Open University,
35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge, MK6 3DY
Tel 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
Email: [log in to unmask]
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|