Heads or (Re)Tail?

Reading the news online today, I found an article on The Age’s website about how Visa declined to be the GST collector for the Australian government. Firstly, I would like to thank Visa for refusing to be the government’s tax dog. But more importantly … how stupid can our government be? I would like to have a strong retail sector, but not one which is built on ripping off customers and antiquated business models. So let’s take a look:

CLAIM #1: Online sites are killing local retail

Bullshit!

Firstly if online shopping is such a revenue boost, why not join the party? Australia’s 2 largest department stores – DJ and Myer – only opened up an online store within the last 12 months. This is 2011 people.  They waited an entire decade after online shopping became commonplace and I have to pay for it? I don’t think so. Even today, their sites offer no search function and only feature part of their catalog. If you go to both their websites, you will be greeted with “shop online” message in size 40 font plastered across the middle of the screen, as if this is some sort of innovative service from these retail T-Rexes. Who doesn’t have an online store? Oh yeah, Harvey Norman, the loudest bleater of them all doesn’t. Past midyear 2011 and HN only sells in a physical shop. No wonder they are going under.

Secondly, many, if not most of online transactions in Australia, are with Australian retailers. These transactions are subject to GST.

CLAIM #2: We are not competitive due to GST-free overseas sites

Garbage!

I am now looking to buy a DSLR camera for my daughter. On amazon.com, you can find it for $700. The cheapest I found it in Australia is $1300 (unless I shop for a grey market product). So even with GST and shipping, I will still be hundreds of dollars in front.

I recently bought a Circulon casserole from amazon.com for $60. DJ, I would estimate (as I cannot tell due to their website not listing it) it would cost around $150.

A couple of months ago I bought my son a pair of Nike runners for $85 from eastbay.com. The Nike outlet on Smith St. had it for $220. 

So why buy from them? Do they think I am stupid?

In the absence of any form of IQ within the ranks of their executive management, they run to Mama Government for help. Yes … the same government they would chastise for interfering with the free market economy when it seeks to lower tariffs. And sadly, the current Government, which lacks any form of backbone and is eager to please everyone, wastes tax payer’s dollars on a monkey-ass idea instead of telling the retailers to wake up and smell the coffee.  Thankfully, Visa has an understanding of the concept of competition and does not want to see thousands of Aussies switching to MasterCard or Paypal.

What's on the menu?

The recent destruction of a crop of Genetically Modified (GM) wheat by Greenpeace has stirred up the debate around the value and safety of GM foods. Neil Perry, a prominent Aussie chef suggests that genetically modified wheat has no place on the menu. Personally I am not sure whether I am comfortable with GM foods. On one hand, their safety is far from being proven. On the other hand, humanity has been genetically modifying foods since we adopted agriculture 10,000+ years ago. How do you think we got seedless watermelons? By selective breeding. And what is selective breeding? A genetic manipulation of the watermelon. How else would you produce a seedless watermelon? I guess you could try talking him into it, but I don’t like your chances. So I really don’t get what freaks people out. But I am not here to debate GM foods. I am here to examine Neil Perry’s arguments.

Neil’s argument as a whole is that our diet has been – in recent time – become ever unhealthier. While I could not agree more with Mr. Perry, I question his sincerity. Jamie Oliver, for example, put his money where his mouth is and campaigned hard in the UK to change the menus offered at schools. He may have had ulterior motives but this effort surely was not a cakewalk. It would be nice is the Neilster did something similar. But hey, who could blame him? Designing the menu for Qantas First Class cabin is much more fun, not to mention more lucrative.

He then proceeds to focus on the safety issue – “Even more troubling is the fact that GM plants have never been proven safe to eat”. That is true, but in the same vein, over consumption of alcohol has been proved to be unsafe. I admit that I have never visited any of Neil Perry’s establishments but I suspect he would not refuse to sell a 3^rd bottle of his overpriced wine to a table of 2 which has already downed a couple.

“Through trial and error over many thousands of years, we have found what we can eat for health and nourishment and what we must stay away from”. This is an interesting statement. It would seem that Mr. Perry is perfectly happy to benefit from the trials and errors of previous generations but is not willing to undertake the same process himself for the sake of future generations.

On to the evil corporations, “In a few generations our food and farming systems have been radically transformed. Once based around nature and human need, they are now controlled by corporations, from seed to supermarket, for the purpose of profit”. Is Mr. Perry really advocating we go back to treating food and eating only as a need? If we did, he would be out of business. And while we are on the topic of business, isn’t he a corporation selling food for profit? Or is Rockpool a sophisticated code for Soup Kitchen?

Mr. Perry then concludes by saying that “As leading chefs in Australia, we will stop using wheat products if GM becomes prevalent, or we will exclusively use certified organic wheat”. Knock yourself out Neil. I am sure you will roll over the additional expense onto your customers. So why don’t you do us a favour? Open up a chain of restaurants, in the suburbs, serving healthy, organic nutritional food at cost or donate your profits to family farms (Paul Newman donates his) or DO something which is consistent with your convictions. We really have enough chefs with inflated egos.

We have to save Rupert

After reading the article mentioned in my previous blog, my lunch was only half eaten, so I turned to page 3 of the Inquirer of July 16^th (part of the Australian Weekend edition). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the Australian understands loyalty. “Elite few spearhead the anti-Murdoch campaign”, it proclaims. “We are seeing a media coup led by a tiny gaggle of illiberal liberals”. I was a tad dazzled at this liberal use of the word “liberal” but then I started thinking. What really happens inside the Australian? Does the editor get a memo from upper management instructing him/her to jump to the Murdoch’s defense? Do the journalists elbow each other out of the way in their rush to volunteer for the job? Or do those assigned to it go “Geez, why me? Now I have to invent something to try and spin this as an anti-Rupert crusade”?

I won’t dissect the article (you can find it here) but the main gist is that there is now a campaign led by a various group of people which aims solely at promoting their own self-interests. Considering that the date for the author’s next speaking engagement is listed at the bottom of the article or the shameless plug for his own book by Mr. McIntyre from page 2, for the Australian to bemoan the use of the media to promote self-interest is ... shall we say … hypocritical. But we shouldn’t let small details like that bother us. After all, this “tiny gaggle” all have an axe to grind against the maligned Murdoch press, whose sole objective is to inform us, objectively, on the important issues affecting us. You know, issues like the extra marital affair of John Prescott (former Labour deputy prime minister), Chris Bryant’s (Labour MP) Y-fronts on gay-sex websites or Hugh Grant’s “roadside larks with a hooker in Los Angeles in 1995”. Reporters paying off the police for information? Why on earth report on that? It is an issue of no consequence.

The article also warns against what it sees as the main driving force behind the campaign, namely the suppression of media freedom. But since, the freedom to publish garbage and make a shitload of money doing so is clearly not a narrow self-interest of the Murdoch press, we sadly cannot call them “self-interested crusaders who pose as warriors”

Red, Yellow, Greens

A few days ago, I settled down to eat my lunch. I like to read while I eat, so I picked up the Inquirer section of the weekend Australian (16-17 July). On page 2, center page, I found an article titled "At last, a thorough probe into what drives the Greens machine" by Andrew McIntyre. You can also find it online. now ... I don't know who Mr. McIntyre is, but I do know he edited a book titled "The Greens: Policies, Reality and Consequences". it said so in the little print at the end of the article. I voted Greens in the last elections, but I am by no means an ardent follower. Unlike Mr Mcintyre I (as is evident from the previous sentence) state my bias in my writing, which is not something that could be said for him. The article begins by saying that basically the Greens will lead Australia down the gurgler and that there is little understanding within the Australia public on how damaging their policies could be. However, we can rest assured as Andrew has arrived to save us. He then proceeds to say that "It was the growing perception of the failure of public analysis of the Greens' policies that motivated Connor Court Publishing to commission the book, The Greens: Policies, Reality and Consequences". I don't know this for fact, but I strongly suspect that the book will not be free, which makes me think that maybe the motivation behind it was less about the concern for opening our eyes to the Green malice and more about getting some of those green bills to leave our pockets and make their way in those of Connor Court Publishing. but I digress .... 

The authors of the book took the Greens' policies (as stated on their website) and invited “Distinguished experts in the relevant fields from across Australia …  to assess these policies in the context of Australia's present realities, and to highlight any adverse, unintended consequences these policies might have for the nation”. Clearly, the people behind the book don’t fancy the Greens much, but c’mon … you want to tell me not a single policy has a got even a single beneficial outcome? Is this what you call “a thorough probe”? It is not thorough at all if you only present half the picture.

It then proceeds to tell us that “It is not a jeremiad and it does not wish to trace the historical roots of Green politics, impugn motivations of individual Greens, or question the motivations of their party”. So how come the article title claims it is about what drives the Greens? How can you understand the drive if you do not look at the history and motivations of key figures within that party?

But he keeps the best for last: “The Greens is an important reference for those who would like an informed, thorough and objective examination of the consequences of the policies …”. Let me see here … the guy is plugging his own book, which only looks at the negative aspects of Greens’ policies, neglects to examine the history and he calls that “thorough” and “objective”?

I think it would have been more appropriate to call his article “At last, a way for me to make money out of my anti-Green bias”.

And just in case you did not know – The Australian is part of the Murdoch empire

Welcome

Hi everyone and welcome to my blog.

What can I say? The wonderful guys at Telstra called me the other day and told me they recently upgraded me to the latest version of the Internet ... for free! I was duly impressed and decided it was high time I established an online presence. After all, now that News of the World has called it a day, someone needs to man the fort of quality journalism.

You may ask yourself "who is this guy?", "what is this blog about?", "what's with the silly blog name?". On the other hand you may tell yourself "this is not my beautiful wife". Since I cannot help you with the latter, let me attempt the former.

who am I? well, luckily this amazing blog site has a profile section, so feel free to take a look.

what is this blog about? nothing and everything, but mostly it is my own musings on current affairs, reactions to what I read/watch in the media and common sense (which is becoming less common by the day).

... the silly name? ever heard of Google? why don't you give it a try? people have gotten way too used to being fed with a spoon.

Until next time ...