Monthly Archives: December 2012

TNCs, Wealth and Income Inequality

Putting DRC Poverty in Context

Leave a comment
DRC – Resource Rich but ‘dirt poor’

The GDP of The Democratic Republic of Congo is $15 billion. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total value of goods and services produced within a country in one year, and so is roughly equivalent to the amount of money that will be spent in total on everything by everyone in one year in that country.**

You might find it difficult to put this amount of money in context, so to give you an idea of how little this it’s useful to think about how we spend similar amounts of money in the UK….

The GDP of the DRC is equivalent to less than half the amount of money the UK Government spends on Housing Benefit per year – (average per year prediction for next four years – $38.1bn (£23.75).

UK government housing benefit expenditure is about 2.5 times greater than the DRC’s GDP

/

The entire population of the DRC have about half as much money to spend as BP.’s profits for 2011 ($25.7 Billion) – (BP. Is the UK’s most profitable company).

BP.’s 2011 profits were nearly twice the GDP of the DRC

/

The UK population spend $9 billion more on their pets than the entire population of the DRC spend on themselves – Total UK pet expenditure per year stands at £14.9 Billion or $23.9bn

People in the UK spend $9 billion more on their pets every year than DRC’s GDP

/

Britain’s second most profitable company, Royal Dutch Shell, made $5 billion more in profit than the total GDP of the DRC – Shell’s 2011 profits were $20 billion.

Shell’s profits in 2011 amounted to $5 billion more than DRC’s GDP

/

Finally, and depressingly, the closest equivalent I could find is that DRC GDP is roughly equivalent the amount that UK adults spend on Christmas presents this year – An amount which stands at $13.6bn or £8.5bn.

‘Please sir, I want some more’

 

Merry Christmas!

/

**Yes I know there’s probably quite a lot of additional money floating about because of the massive corruption in DRC, but I have to go with official figures because at least they exist!

 

 

Beauty Myth, But what can I do?, My 'life'

To Pole or not to Pole, is that Objectification?

3 Comments

My sixth form college (16-19) has just started ‘pole fitness’ classes and put this very large banner up to advertise them. The college’s take on this is to see ‘pole-fitness’ on a level with Zumba – It’s simply a different form of exercise that young women (let’s face it – it’s primarily women who will attend either) can use to empower themselves, but the former’s just a bit more aethletic and more ‘Burlesque’ than Zumba.

However some staff have commented that it just doesn’t seem appropriate for a 16-19 college to be promoting something that is associated with the sex-industry. The sexual connotations are visible in the banner – you can ‘clearly see cheek showing’ as one member of staff recently pointed out.

Of course I had to go away and do some digging on the issue, and it comes as no surprise that there are a wide range of opinions about whether or not Pole-Fitness is empowering or oppressive to women. To summarise just two…

Clare Mohan, writing at the Varsity Blogs about Pole Fitness in Cambridge University sets out the argument against it….

‘Whatever you name it, pole fitness or pole dancing, you’re still participating in the social context of the pole. Everyone knows where it comes from, that pole dancers are to be found in strip clubs and sex establishments up and down the country, and that pole dancing (which is, a huge percentage of the time, an activity carried out by women) is a dance form specifically designed to excite the watcher (who is, a huge percentage of the time, a man). So pole dancing encourages a view of the dancer [as a] sexual object.’

For more information on the objectification of women see the ‘Object‘ website.  

The ‘Pro-Pole’ voice comes from a number of women who both ‘pole’ and identify themselves as Feminists over at the StudioVeena.

Two of the more compelling arguments for ‘poling’ being empowering include…

(From ‘Nilla’) “Maybe people feel that way because stripping as a profession is often seen as something women would only do as a last resort, and that it’s degrading for any woman who does it (It can be, but so can working in the fast food industry).  So in a way, taking pole dance out of the stripping/sex industry context and doing it for your own enjoyment is the ultimate act of feminism, kind of taking the activity back for your own control and enjoyment rather than having to do it for the enjoyment of someone else.”

(From ‘Poledanceromance’) ’”To me, the answer is very simple (sex positive feminist): feminism must be about choice. It’s about women supporting other women in our efforts to explore undiscovered parts of ourselves. If I want to explore my potential by staying at home full-time to be the best mom I can be, you’d support me in that. If you wanted to explore yourself as a sexual being by experimenting in different sexual relationships, I’d support you in that (provided everyone is being safe!)”

If you read through the arguments for poling, many of them focus on the notion that it’s good for women to be allowed the freedom to express whatever they like through dance, including their sexuality if they damn well please, and they argue that in pole-fitness this process of exploration is completely liberated from the context of male domination and objectification that may exist in stripping.

What’s interesting is that both Pro and anti-pole stances see a sexual link in the activity, which brings me back to the original question – Is it right for a 16-19 college to be promoting something that has obvious sexual connotations? Moreover, is it right to do this when we all know that it will be mainly, probably solely young women, rather than young men, engaging in this sexualised activity?

Personally I don’t feel particularly comfortable with the college’s promoting pole-fitness, but am I just showing my age here? Or maybe this is my ‘inner patriarch’ just wanting to control young women from expressing their freedom? Or my ‘inner dad’ wanting to prevent young women from growing up?

Maybe I just need to get over it and start promoting pole-fitness in tutorials? Maybe that’s the future… ‘And don’t forget… final UCAS deadlines are this Friday, next Wednesday there’s a guest speaker talking about how to break into Journalism, and any young women wishing to explore their inner sex kitten are welcome to attend our new pole-fitness classes on Tuesdays… Please undress appropriately.’

Comments more than welcome…

 

My 'life', TNCs

The growing power of corporations?

Leave a comment

In the last seven years the revenues and profits of the world’s largest corporations have grown at twice the rate of the GNI of the world’s largest economies (and a lot faster than the flat-lining Euro economies.)

NB – There’s no actual analysis here (yet) – make of it what you will!

  2005 2011/12 %change
Total GNI top 5 economies $23.8 trillion $34.7 trillion 45%
Total Revenue top 5 global companies $1.3 trillion $2.4 trillion 85%
% of revenue as % of total GNI of top five countries 5.4% 6.9% 1.5%
Total Profit top 10 companies $151 billion $295 billion 95%

See below for the evidence base – I’m aware of the problems of comparing Revenue/ profits with GNI as a measure of ‘Corporate power’ in relation to Nation State power, but I’m not actually doing that here, am I – I’m doing a historical comparison… 

Global 500 Companies by Revenue in 2012

  1. Royal Dutch Shell – $485 billion
  2. Exxon-Mobile – $452 billion
  3. Wall-Mart – $446 billion
  4. BP. $386 billion
  5. Sinopec Group – $375 billion
Total Revenue of Top five Global Companies 2012 = $2.14 Trillion

The Most Profitable Companies in the world 2011

  1. Gazprom – $44 billion
  2. Exxon-Mobile – $41 billion
  3. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China – $32 billion
  4. Shell – $30 billion
  5. Chevron – $26 billion
  6. China Construction Bank – $26 billion
  7. Apple – $25 Billion
  8. BP. – $25 Billion
  9. BHP Billiton – $23 billion
  10. Microsoft – $23 Billion
Total Profit 2005 for top 10 companies = $295 billion
Let’s look at the same figures for 2005 (Revenue on left, profit on right)
1 Wal-Mart Stores 287,989.0 10,267.0
2 BP 285,059.0 15,371.0
3 Exxon Mobil 270,772.0 25,330.0
4 Royal Dutch/Shell Group 268,690.0 18,183.0
5 General Motors 193,517.0 2,805.0
6 DaimlerChrysler 176,687.5 3,067.1
7 Toyota Motor 172,616.3 10,898.2
8 Ford Motor 172,233.0 3,487.0
9 General Electric 152,866.0 16,819.0
10 Total 152,609.5 11,955.0
Revenue for top 5 companies in 2005 = $1.30 trillion

Profit for top 10 companies  = $151 billion (Roughly – you’ll need to go to the top 100 list on the link above!)

Profits of top ten companies change in 7 years –

  • 2005 – $151 billion
  • 2007 – $295 billion
  • Change = 95%

Revenue of top five global companies change in 7 years –

  • 2005 – $1.3 trillion
  • 2007 – $2.4 trillion
  • Growth = 85%
  1. USA – 12 – 15 trillion
  2. China 2.24 trillion – 7.30 trillion
  3. Japan 4.6 -6.0 trillion
  4. Germany 2.79 – 3.63 trillion
  5. France 2.17 – 2.82 trillion
  6. Brazil 856 bn  – 2.42 trillion
  7. UK 2.38 – 2.4 trillion (Thanks George, you f******* twatt)
  8. Italy 1.78  -2.18 trillion
  9. India 828bn  -1.83 trillion
  10. Canada -1.11 -1.70 trillion
Total increase GNI – Top five economies 2005 compared to 2011 –
  • 2005 – 23.8 Trillion
  • 2007 – 34.7 Trillion
  • Growth – 45%
  • (Growth top ten = 62%)