Showing posts with label markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label markets. Show all posts

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

COMMENT: The Portas Review - what nonsense

Mary Portas has, today, published her plans to save the "traditional high street" after many months of consultation.


Her suggestions include less regulation for high street traders and a National Market Day. If we follow these, apparently, we will have a thriving high street.

I think the term that comes to mind is "poppycock"!

We don't have a thriving high street because shoppers, in their droves, have turned their back on them. They, generally, offer a smaler range of goods at more expensive prices than out of town centres and, when car park charges are included, there seems little to recommend the high street.

My objections to her proposals are numerous, because her report is fundamentally flawed.

We live, rightly or wrongly, in a capitalist system. It is not for the government to be manipulating the marketplace to favour one type of shopping outlet over another. Businesses fail because they fail to find customers and fail to move with the times. It is right that bad businesses fail - and no good business fails, ever.

Portas' suggestion of a "National Market Day" is silly style over substance nonsense of which Barack Obama, the ultimate style over substance politician, would be proud. Yes, events can help drive business, but they have to be events with a purpose and, probably, a local focus.

In our already overly consumerist society,do we really want another day to celebrate shopping and consumerism? I'm sure Hallmark are already planning on printing "Happy Market Day" cards that they will sell... In their out of town mall outlets!

Some towns do manage to have thriving and successful town centres and high streets. If some can succeed then it is only incompetence that makes others fail, and location is a factor. Many thriving high streets are in places where lots if peope visit, there is a tourist pull.

And isn't it right that everything, including the way in which we shop, evolve? Some may not like shopping malls but they are what the majority of people choose to use. Why should they be penalised because some monstrous woman, and some idiots on the Tory right, have a rise-tinted view of what shopping used to be like.

Things change. Live with it.

Yes, I agree that out of town shopping centres have an unfair advantage when it comes to parking, and that parking charges in some towns is quite expensive, but aren't we meant to be discouraging car use, for the sake of the environment? I'd favour all shops, malls and out of town retail parks having to charge for their car parking - and probably at a higher rate than at present. Certainly, it's wrong that the likes of the Trafford Centre and Meadowhell can offer free parking all day - but it is equally wrong that car parking charges in small towns are reduced. Look at the big picture.

Now I agree with Portas about reducing red tape - but not reducing it for the sake of it, only when it is not necessary - again, ths should apply to all businesses, not just high street shops. And ket's not forget, some red tape is essential.

Ultimately, shoppers will go where they will get the most convenient value for money. The high street has had it's day and, apparent from in tourist towns, I suggest it has died - and so be it.

As my wife will attest, I'm not a fan of big shopping malls, but I won't shed a single tear for the death of the high street, andI think it is wrong that any public money is used to keep this dodo on a life support system just to appease those who haven't moved with the times.

The high street is dead. So what?

Monday, 21 November 2011

OPINION: The "Tobin Tax" misses the point

Over the past year or there's been a growing call, notably from left-wing politicians, for what's been called a "Tobin Tax" on a variety of financial transactions.


This follows the various bank bailouts and the Eurozone crisis caused, on the whole, by investors gambling, skimming, betting or moving monies from one pot to another at the right time.

The financial markets are, if we were honest, out of control. Millions, billions, trillions are gambled around the world every second and,when things go wrong, banks go bust, governments struggle and the entire world goes into a crisis which could so easily be avoided.

The "Tobin Tax", suggested by Nobel Economics Laureate James Tobin as far back as 1972, would tax all spot conversions of one currency into another. In recent months the call has been to widen the scope of such a scheme into a tax on all financial transactions.

But why? Aren't the transactions, the betting and gambling, the skimming, morally unacceptable?

Instead of taxing the morally corrupt transactions of the world markets why not outlaw the activities?

Isn't taxing something that is morally corrupt just as bad as taking part in it? After all, governments would be financially benefitting.

If a school bully takes lunch money from others in his class the teacher doesn't take a percentage; the bully is punished, the theft is against the school rules.

By calling for a "Tobin Tax" the left has lost the moral high ground and buried its snout in the trough of greed and dodgy dealings it has been objecting too.

Don't tax immoral financial transactions, ban them.