Content deleted Content added
→top: Added Template:WikiProject banner shell and other General fixes |
No edit summary |
||
Line 215:
Under the Unemployment section, it says ″there is he official number of people unemployed in 1959 was only 21. A year later it was 22.″ This is unclear - is it that the total number of unemployed people in New ZEaland rose by one? Or is this a percentage? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.57.203.226|122.57.203.226]] ([[User talk:122.57.203.226#top|talk]]) 04:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:These are supposed to be numbers not percentages, but the reference given for the figures does not contain unemployment numbers for these years, and although New Zealand had very low unemployment in that era, sources I could find in a quick online search suggest they were not as low as our article states. For example, the 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand gives 1,656 unemployed in July 1959[https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/labour-department-of/page-3], and the 1959 New Zealand Yearbook says "The numbers of applications for unemployment benefits dealt with during the years ended 31 March 1957 and 1958 were 949 and 1,415 respectively", with lower numbers actually granted benefits.[https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1959/NZOYB_1959.html?_ga=2.255711880.1410108215.1522003938-1089331741.1517422461&_gac=1.195875422.1522004862.Cj0KCQjwkd3VBRDzARIsAAdGzMDmvGcCWyTnlOAPtnvrFOLsEp_t8HP_zjFInGYgjIBjqTAUk69lKAYaAuFwEALw_wcB#idchapter_1_362873] Clearly there is something seriously amiss in the figures this article is presenting. On the other hand, there is "At one point in the 1950s there was a joke that the Prime Minister knew the name of every unemployed person in New Zealand."[https://www.labour.org.nz/in_the_presence_of_history]-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">[[User talk:gadfium|gadfium]]</span> 08:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
== Political bias ==
The phrase: “The results of the experiment never materialized” is inconsistent with the following: “ Between 2000 and 2007, the New Zealand economy expanded by an average of 3.5% a year driven primarily by private consumption and the buoyant housing market. During this period, inflation averaged only 2.6% a year, within the Reserve Bank's target range of 1% to 3%“. Market oriented reforms are never immediate in it’s implementation and outcomes. Russia started to grown after 8 years of it’s limited reforms. The market is a chain, it doesn’t takes one day or two to turn the country more productive, efficient, entrepreneurial, and solid/capitalized. So the assumption that the results promised by the proposers of the reforms never materialized is a biased conclusion based in opinion. The article clearly shows an anti capitalistic stance, some of the sources chosen are biased and I’m not sure the article is entirely covered with credible sources. Cheers from Brazil.
| |||