For most sides in the Premier League there is excess demand, but perfectly inelastic supply. Whilst this is hardly ideal for these clubs, inequalities between supply and demand can be fatal for smaller clubs. Darlington Football Club are the classic example of this – only their demise came about due to excess supply. Up until 2003, the club played at Feethams, with a capacity of 8,500. The average crowd they pulled in this season was 3,312 – whilst significantly lower than capacity this is the norm for clubs of that level. However, it was an ill-fated move to the Reynolds Arena in the 2003-04 season that sparked the beginning of the end for the club. Bizarrely, the chairman had chosen to build a 25,000 all seater stadium despite the low crowds Darlington attracted. This was an economic disaster and the money spent on the stadium was simply never recouped from entrance fees. Add this to the fact that money was raised for construction from high interest loans and the club was always going to be in trouble. The maintenance and running costs for such a large stadium were huge, and it wasn’t long before the club was driven into administration – just 6 months after they moved in. Whilst money was raised to keep the club going in the short term it was simply not sustainable and the club went bust in 2011
Offering a financial stimulant to obese families will incentivise them to eat healthily albeit to a certain extent. It is common knowledge that obesity is prevalent in families who typically have a low amount of disposable income to spend on food, which drives them to excessively consume foods that are instant, due to the seemingly low cost. Thus, the financial incentive may drive them to consume healthier foods that in-turn may result in less claims for the NHS. The additional funds that are pumped into the NHS to deal with obesity related diseases could instead be utilised to incentivise these families. This would further be economically beneficial for these families and thus, could bring about benefits for both the individuals and the government.
Based on the Strain theory and the perception that crime results from ‘anomie,’ it is evident that our culture includes but the structure excludes the disadvantaged; exemplifying the fact that there is a distinct statistical association between recorded crime and income inequality and social class.
In comparison to the general population in the UK; prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been unemployed, and 2.5 times more likely to have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence; hence reaffirming the sentiment that the ‘underprivileged,’ are more liable to end up in confinement. Akin to Young & Lea’s (1993) claim, ‘the poor suffer disproportionately from all the more serious forms of crime’.
As society has developed the notion of crime has been re-evaluated and the government’s persistence in promoting tougher penalties has been greatly scrutinised; as it is questionable whether putting an individual in solitary confinement is beneficial for society. Statistics prove that 74% of convicted criminals re-offend within nine years of leaving prison. Thus, is the £40,000 of taxpayers’ money that is pumped into supplementing and upholding our system of justice doing its worth? Breaking the cycle of crime in our society that has been the fundamental ambition behind reformations to our justice system; and the continuous funds that our coalition is injecting into upholding this ideology even in times of economic downturn has led many to question; is it worth it?
Supports of the notion of taxation however, assert that no such violation takes place as they put forward the thesis that the matter of social contracts justifies the government’s actions is reaping tax. The funding of societal provisions which stimulate economic growth such as the development of schools and public institutions are wholly dependent on taxation and thus, impeding the collection of tax will have significant ramifications on society. Without taxation, law and order will further be deterred with the government having no means to reinforce justice which will inevitably place the future of the country in the hands of the Bourgeoisie, sending society down the Marxist spiral.
Tectonic hazards frequently occur the world over but this does not always result in a risk. There are three aspects that eventually cause the disaster and these are: the tectonic event itself, exposure to that event and whether you are vulnerable to its effects or not. Only when all three of these criteria are satisfied does a tectonic disaster occur. The first of the three cannot be mitigated against by humans as we cannot stop a volcanic eruption or an earthquake occurring. The second factor, exposure is becoming an increasingly more worrying issue as global population continues it’s current, rapid rise. As populations increase, settlements start to expand into regions of regular tectonic activity. This close proximity to the tectonic event increases exposure and hence, the risk of a tectonic disaster occurring. Mexico City is a prime example of where rapid population growth has occurred despite the overlying threat of disaster. The city, with a population of over 21 million, has experienced rapid expansion during the second half of the 20th Century despite being built on top of unconsolidated alluvial sediments. These help magnify the effect of seismic waves in the extremely seismically active region which only serves to worsen the impact of potential earthquakes. Over 5,000 people were killed in September 1985 when a category 8 magnitude earthquake hit the region but this did not seem to deter potential immigrants. The third factor that contributes to earthquake risk is the vulnerability to an earthquake and this is the area that can be most easily mitigated against although, an authority’s ability to do so is massively dependent on their economic position.
Mitigation against a tectonic disaster has three components: plan, prepare and respond. In order for a government to be able to do these, they must have first have the correct perception of the event, they must be able to perceive the danger and understand the need for mitigation. They must also have sufficient wealth available to them in order for them to successfully mitigate which is why there are such large disparities between mitigation levels in developed and developing countries.
Despite this however, China is still growing at an incredible rate which other countries would dream of. The release of this data coincides with the Chinese President Xi Jinping visiting the UK for a week. There is no doubt that talks of a new trade deal will be in discussion. With China growing at this rate, it would mean global economic growth of 1%, making China the biggest contributor to the world economy. So it is easy to see why Britain wants to increase trade with China and increase Chinese investment.
However, it is an inescapable fact that some countries, including the UK, have been affected by the slowdown. The country’s slowdown has led to an undermining of industries such as energy and metals, which ultimately led to many of the UK’s steel-making factories such as the SSI plant in Redcar cutting jobs and even shutting down completely. The blame was put on cheaper Chinese steel sales and falling steel prices, leaving many industrial centres in developed countries to further deteriorate and unable to compete with foreign competition.
Phone manufacturers are a particularly bad example and not entirely due to their actions. In the West, people will often buy new phones every two year or more often. These phones will seldom be manufactured in the country of use (the Motorola Moto X 2013 was a rare example which was manufactured in the US company’s home country, but was closed once it was succeeded) and therefore (as with almost all technology) shipping is a frequent affair. Rare earth elements are frequently used in smart devices as features and components need their respective chemistry in order to produce their desired function. However, 16 of the 17 are used in phones and it is questionable whether they are retrieved in recycling and whether manufacturers are making sure to use sustainable sources. Original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs for short, have little economic incentive to be more sustainable other than to not deplete supply of resources which would increase prices in the future.
Six years later, in 1950, Arévalo’s defence minister Jacobo Árbenz was elected President. Árbenz continued the social reforms and granted land to peasants who were victims of debt slavery before Arévalo. Together, the two post-Revolution leaders had brought about the most democratic government Guatemala had ever had. All was relatively good, it seemed. But policy makers in the US were not happy. Despite the policies born out of the Revolution being moderate and, despite the fact that only four out of fifty seats in Congress were held by communists, the US government saw the new society as exactly that – communist. Why? Because of the United Fruit Company.
In the late 18th century, Jeremy Bentham designed a building called the Panopticon. It was designed primarily for use as a prison. A single watchman stands in the middle of the building and can see every cell; however, the inmates cannot see the watchman. He is hidden behind a contrivance – some blinds, say. Although a cellmate is unlikely to be being watched at any given time, it is the possibility of being watched at the present moment that leads him to change his behaviour; he accordingly acts as though he is being watched all the time.
The absolute poverty we see in developing countries, that is, individuals living off less than $2 per day, does not exist in the UK. Relative poverty however, does exist. It is currently defined as 60% of the median income, or around £260 pounds per week. This definition leaves us with a staggering 13 million people, half of which are in work. Perhaps more alarmingly one in six children, 2.3 million, live in poverty (definitions become more complex at this point due to equitizing family sizes and recent government revisions). Figures are similar among pensioners; one in six, or about 1.6 million, live in poverty.