Adidas shows up our true priorities

August 11, 2011

It’s been a week of large-scale crises, with the three big stories being the renewal of the global financial crisis, the riots in England, and the cost of All Black jerseys in New Zealand.

All Black jerseys? Indeed, this is thing that seems to be worrying most Kiwis! Seeing the media coverage it’s getting here is the sort of thing that makes political and media commentators roll their eyes and ask, despairingly, “So much for our small-town priorities!”

And yet there is good reason for us ordinary folk to blog and tweet and facebook about Adidas’s pricing policy. It’s something we feel we can actually do something about.

Most of us are swamped intellectually if not emotionally when trying to get a picture of what’s going wrong with global finances and the inexorable rise in social anarchy (and the extent to which they are related). We’re as disconnected from those emerging realities as are the people rioting in Britain are from community participation and wellbeing.

What we can understand is the global marketplace for pop-culture goods such as All Blacks clothing (and branded clothing in general), and we can see how global marketers such as (in this case) Adidas can try to manipulate consumers.

And just as we understand that, so we also know how to hit back, using global IT media to force the marketers to think again, to see how attempts to manipulate can backfire and do more economic damage than the gains from charging premium prices.

And I may be wrong, but it’s entirely possible that the power of global corporate marketing may even be one cause of the other two big issues of the day.

 


It’s the tide we should be reacting to, not the waves

August 3, 2011

One of my favourite beach activities as a child, and even more so as a young father, was defending sandcastles as the tide came in. The drama of building temporary walls and channels to deflect the next encroaching wave was always very entertaining for me and the (other) kids.

In the end, of course, the construction was washed away and we settled back to swimming or ice creams. (Unless, that is, the sandcastle is constructed above the high tide mark. But then where’s the fun in that?)

Watching the temporary fixes being set up in recent months in many of the world’s most powerful economies to avert or postpone debt crises has much the same feel about it. Watching the short-term, narrow-focus reactions of our own consumption-addicted citizens, and of many politicians and business leaders, to the adjustments makes us look more like the children than the grown-ups in this game-changing drama.

America’s shameful political confrontation this week over its unthinkable debt situation is the ultimate in wake-up calls. But what do we in New Zealand learn? We worry that interest rates may go up a bit, or the cost of milk may rise, or some other relatively minor effect. We see the waves approaching and build little protective walls (if we care at all), but we still refuse to see the tidal advance.

Economies around the world are becoming less stable by the month, but we continue on our merry way in the hope and expectation that the little adjustments our governments make will sort it all out or at least protect our little castles. Our leaders feel happy if they can divert the waves one by one hoping that the citizens are not disconcerted by the real global picture – at least until after the next election.

The metaphor of waves and tides applies equally to climate change, which advances even more slowly than economic collapse. Weather events become a little more extreme each year, small ecological changes are seen over observable periods of time, but still in everyday living these seem like series of waves to be deflected and we cannot see the tide advancing.

So we tinker with policy decisions such as emission trading systems and carbon taxes, recycling and energy saving. Meanwhile populations at large, encouraged by the mantra that economic growth is everything, see such initiatives as obstacles to progress. We cannot see the larger picture – the tide coming in – over a longer time period.

Pessimistic, yes. But societies based on both corporate capitalism and environmental disinterest will, if there is no commitment to change but only to tinker, eventually be washed away. And it will be a painful process.

Trouble is, apart from trying to avoid or minimise personal debt, I have little idea what ordinary folk can do about the economic situation, except to keep our eyes open and hope for the emergence of more business and political leaders who can put real sustainability into practice ahead of the growth imperative.


Supporting local businesses is in my best interests

July 21, 2011

I’ve blogged before about the many advantages of living in a community the size of Motueka (urban population about 7000), and one of them is the easy access (in my case, generally walking distance) to shops, eateries and services which supply most of my needs.

While acknowledging that many big ticket items are in short supply here (e.g. only two smallish car yards, one appliance retailer), and that occasionally some ordinary items have been short when I’ve needed them (e.g. no shop stocking white tennis socks on the day I’d run out), generally Motueka offers me an impressively good selection of the basics.

When more is needed, Nelson and Richmond are only a 30-40 minutes drive away and the selection of shops there would satisfy all but the most fastidious of buyers, I imagine. And of course, there’s the giant global shopping mall called the internet.

But I’ve firmed up now on a personal strategic policy of buying locally whenever possible and affordable. And there’s one good reason for this – it’s in my own best interests.

The maxim goes: The more I buy locally, the better those shops do and the more likely they are to still be in business when I need them.

The inverse is an even more convincing argument: Every time I choose to buy in Nelson or on the internet when I could have bought the same or similar in Motueka, I make it harder for a local businesses to survive, so the less likely that business is to be around when I need them.

It is in my interests to support them because I want to be part of a town which houses sustainable businesses that offer me solutions to my basic needs. When they thrive, my life gets better – they offer me more choices and better quality products and services so I don’t have the hassle of driving out of town to get them.

Every time I choose to top up my petrol tank in Nelson because the cost per litre may be 3 cents less (the sort of average we’re used to), I lessen fractionally the viability of our two High Street gas stations here. If, then, one went under it would be me that suffered as much as their owners because I will have lost an option into the longer-term future.

When I buy a book over the internet to save a few dollars and get it more quickly than it can be ordered in, I make it fractionally harder for my nearby stationer to survive; and if he went then so would so many other products he so usefully makes available to me at strolling distance.

I’m not going to name and single out any particular local businesses that I want to survive for my personal future benefit, and therefore will patronise whenever possible, but locals here will know and understand these examples.

If I need a new computer modem (as I did recently), I’d rather buy from the one local computer shop than save $15 getting one on the internet or spending that $15 on petrol to travel to Nelson to buy one for $10 less at Harvey Norman. The local computer shop now has a tiny extra chance of surviving and becoming even better – plus I got the local tech guy to help install it properly.

If I need new jeans or a sweatshirt, I’ll make sure that at least I try the local menswear retailer first and only consider a trip to the city if he has nothing at all suitable – which is in fact a rare situation. Likewise shoes – the choice available locally is surprisingly good and buying there helps that situation to continue (rather than forcing the retailer to cut down on his range if sales aren’t sufficient to sustain his offering)

I could go on; I trust you’ve well and truly got the picture by now. Even if I have to pay a little more on some purchases (and this isn’t all that often the case anyway), I would rather do that and help make the commercial activity of the community stronger, because in the long run it will make Motueka a better place for me to live, and certainly make me less reliant on driving to the city to buy what I need.

That’s what I call real commercial sustainability.


Capital gains tax a fairer system for all

July 11, 2011

Labour’s is expected to announce its new capital gains tax (CGT) policy later this week, but it’s being discussed already with great vigour since news was leaked last week. Most people believe the leak was deliberate, following a tactic that’s been so successfully employed by National as a way of gauging public reaction before fine tuning.

If this is the case, then I guess I can put in my tuppence worth. I believe the bulk of tax should be levied at a moderate rate across all sectors and all methods of wealth creation, including wages, business profits, GST and capital gains. (The remainder of tax should be gained from social engineering efforts such as taxes on fags, alcohol and petrol.)

I recognise that initially there will be winners and losers if such a strategy is implemented. Winners would be the individuals and companies that already pay taxes and don’t have access to clever ways of avoiding it – they should gain some relief as the tax net widens. Losers would be the people who have relied on no tax on capital gains in order to become wealthier, often with little actual productive effort on their part.

The most obvious losers will be those who make money out of property investment, including many landlords. And you can see this is the case because the main opponents of a capital gains tax policy are the associations representing landlords and property investors. They say there’s nothing in the game for many of their members if they cannot make tax-free money from capital gains.

But I’m very confident that, although there will be some early negative impacts on the rental and housing markets, these will be ironed out within a year or two as everyone adjusts to a new, fairer reality. Market forces – supply and demand – will ultimately force this adjustment. Whatever price changes will be necessary in order for the rental market to continue to operate will bed in and landlords will adjust their calculations.

As a person who tries to express a generosity of spirit to all people, I nevertheless find it hard to extend that to tax freeloaders – those who use all the facilities that taxpayers are funding (and often demand more) while actively seeking ways to avoid paying their share of tax.

GST was introduced in the 1980s largely as a way of stopping people using their businesses to pay for all their living expenses, so paying little tax. Its introduction was accompanied by a drop in personal and business income taxes, so the tax burden was spread across a wider group of wealth accumulators and decreased from those who had no way of avoiding it. That was fairer.

But there are still large numbers of people who get into often non-productive activity (like house trading and renting) principally because they can write so much (often all) income off against losses but be confident they can make a heap of money in capital gain at sale time. Sure, it’s a great lark for them, and I’m not surprised that they would hate a CGT and campaign against it, but their arguments are not based on fairness.

The only other tax that’s talked about that I would like to be considered more seriously would be one on financial transactions. This would target the freeloaders who make money out of shifting money around, which surely must be one of the most parasitic of all never-get-your-hands-dirty occupations.

I don’t love being taxed. But I do enjoy and appreciate a country and society which provides so much that I could not afford myself – the roads, great hospitals, medical subsidies (yes, I’m getting on), good schools, parks, financial support for the elderly and unemployable …. the list goes on.

I see tax as a large-scale version of the membership fees I pay each year for my great local tennis club. It’s an expense I could do without, but when paid it provides me with a share of facilities which I can enjoy while playing my favourite social sport. Some of what my subs are used for does not directly benefit me – things like facilities for the juniors, or subsidies for some social events I don’t attend. But it’s all part of the package and, like my income tax, I would rather pay it than be a freeloader who wants to play at the courts without paying.

Furthermore, a tax level of 15%, which appears to have been suggested, would not be a serious dampener on most activities that accumulate wealth through capital gains. If you sell a property for $100,000 more than it cost you a few years earlier, then you would still come away with $85,000 of it – that’s not bad at all. It would hardly stop me from pursuing that line if that was my choice of income earning.

A few other comments on the CGT.

It’s been pointed out, and I agree, that we should be on same footing as our main trading partners, most of whom have such a tax. John Key sounded really pathetic when he thumped on about a CGT here forcing our producers to take their business to other countries like Australia. Duh! They have a CGT too! And they don’t find it too hard to administer. (But then they’re Aussies, John, much cleverer than us, eh.)

Secondly, I have to say good on Labour for showing some real guts in going down this line. After a clear policy on no state asset sales, this is now one other fundamental difference to stand against National policy. The more Labour can show the guts to come up with strong policies that are significantly different, the more likely I am to consider voting for them.

And of course, also good on Greens, who have advocated a CGT for years and are finally seeing it being advocated by a major party.


Loan sharks must be subject to regulation

June 22, 2011

Like most Kiwis, I’m disgusted by the practices of loan sharks, particularly those who actively prey on people struggling to keep their heads above water. The resurgence of publicity about their activities particularly in parts of Auckland, and now anywhere with on-demand lending via text, is again focusing the minds of politicians.

For most of us it’s a question of what can be done to reduce the harm being done. I have no time for the hard-right view that people must be responsible for their own choices so let the free market reign and the stupid suffer. Two reasons:

1. Some people are genuinely so financially challenged that an extra expense, such as a dentist’s bill or the repair of a car that’s needed to get the breadwinner to work, is yet another last straw. The notion of “personal responsibility” in such cases is a comfortable middle-class attitude.

2. Almost invariably one consequence of being trapped in a loan/debt cycle is the detrimental effects on other people, usually family and long-suffering or gullible friends who, in turn, are eventually affected financially.

Watchers of Coronation Street will recognise how loan-shark debt can get you into an inescapable hole to the detriment of others. Joe the plumber is dragging down poor, trusting Gail and in the process risking the loss of friends with his attempts to wheedle quick money out of them. Yeah, Joe is stupid, but who among us has never looked or fallen for a quick solution to a deeper problem?

Back home, as with problem gambling and drinking, some form of regulation or legislation on lending businesses is necessary, not just to help the primary person affected but also their friends and families.

Most of us (again with exceptions in the form of libertarian ideologues) accept that letting anyone drink as much as they like without sanction will have wider reaching consequences.

Likewise, lenders of last resort need to be regulated to prohibit their worst practices, such as indecipherable loan contracts and monstrous interest rates.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.