Oxfam, publisher of reports with contested findings, is being lambasted by non-Singaporeans and Singaporeans alike, after the latter group already had a go at them.

This was after an Oct. 9 Oxfam report claimed that Singapore is among the bottom 10 countries in the world for tackling income inequality, putting the country in the company of Bangladesh and Laos.

This is due to Singapore not implementing increasing progressive taxation and not clamping down on exemptions and tax dodging, according to Oxfam.

Following the report's publication, Singapore responded that it is interested in measuring real outcomes and not live up to indicators.

Non-Singaporeans blast Oxfam

And if Singapore's response was not forceful enough, some non-Singaporeans have taken on the task of responding to Oxfam in less uncertain terms.

One such response has been published by The Mises Institute, which criticises Oxfam for its methodology and eventual findings that put Singapore way below many other countries that barely have any semblance of governance.

The Mises Institute titled the article, "The buffoons at Oxfam believe it's better to be poor in Afghanistan than Singapore".

What is The Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute's main opposition towards Oxfam is the left-wing politics the charity embraces.

The Mises Institute identifies itself as such:

The Mises Institute exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, and individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.

In other people's reckoning and characterisation, The Mises Institute is more right-wing on some issues, but are proponents of free market economics, while favouring smaller governments.

What article said about Oxfam's study?

The main fatal criticism of Oxfam's report centres around its omission of certain countries that will undoubtedly skew its findings.

For example, very briefly, Oxfam's study is criticised for being a measure of whether nations have punitive welfare states, and not whether poor people have better lives.

The assertion Oxfam makes that poverty can’t be reduced without reducing inequality is labelled as "absurd".

Countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and even Hong Kong, were then left out of the study, making the findings dubious.

This is so as Venezuela and Cuba are both run by left-wing regimes, but their outcomes are nowhere near proof that welfare states can do well.

Hong Kong's omission from the report is even more suspicious, as its inclusion might have rendered the entire study pointless in singling out Singapore.

The rebuttal to Oxfam's findings explains:

Taxes are even lower and there’s even less redistribution in Hong Kong, so maybe it would have been last rather than merely in the bottom 10. Was Oxfam worried about looking foolish, so they left prosperous Hong Kong out of the study? That’s my guess. The last thing the left wants is for people to understand that poor nations only become rich nations with free markets and small government.

At the most basic level, the retort that serves as criticism is: "Imagine being a poor person and getting to choose your country. Which one would you select?"

The person with a non-bias view would pick a place where it’s possible to become rich, rather than remain poor.

And this is the common sense the Oxfam report defies.

You can read the full piece here, which was originally published here.

[related_story]

Content that keeps Mothership.sg going

?

What was the last thing you used this place for? (Somebody said paktor, meet boys?) This is what you can do these days!

⛔?

Life's a beach sometimes but these girls really shouldn't be in swimwear...

?

Have a little money but can't help being kinda lazy? You can still invest using this.