Food prices have been topical this week.
On Tuesday I raised the issue of rising food prices during question time. When the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy was previously asked about how Kiwi families could combat rising food prices, her advice was to “shop around”. The Finance Minister, Bill English confirmed her advice but failed to address the real point of my question which is that Kiwi families can’t shop around increases in GST which will further increase food prices.
The next day there was an interesting article in the Herald about the relationship between a food supplier and one of the two major supermarket chains in New Zealand. Irrespective of the particular case covered in the article there were some interesting questions of more general application:
- Given the dominance of the two supermarket chains and the pressure they can exert how can food suppliers obtain a fair return?
- If prices paid to supplier are ‘screwed down’ who benefits – are prices reduced for consumers or are the profits of the supermarket chains increased?
- To what degree is there anti competitive behaviour in our supermarket industry? It was interesting to see the reference to legal advice about cartel behaviour being sought by the the National Distribution Union
I will be following both Mr Rai’s complaint to the Commerce Commission and any actions by the NDU with interest. Consumers are very reliant on supermarket companies for something that is fundamental – food. We need to have scrutiny on whether these powerful companies and their behaviour to consumers and suppliers.
And then there is the question of how those who work in the food industry are treated.
Mr Rai’s company had future export earning potential for NZ, until (apparently) it was destroyed by the multinational retail chain which was its main customer. (Thanks for looking after the NZ economy, Woolworths.)
You should also talk to market growers in Canterbury and Otago, Carol. There are occasional instances where supermarket chains have pressured growers to accept so pitifully little for the fresh produce (which the supermarkets immediately mark up by a huge degree at retail to you and me) that some growers respond in disgust and decide to plough their crop back into the ground.
Go the Farmers’ Markets!
I suggest you make a real issue out of this. A good starting point would be to look at the mark-ups that supermarkets are making on fresh produce. There is good reason for the produce department being the one that the consumer first enters in the s’market – - – it has first call on the household budget and it has some of the highest (read astronomical) mark-ups.
Carol said…
On Tuesday I raised the issue of rising food prices during question time.
Carol, I can’t believe that you raised such question in the house, where the answer was obvious to everyone. That’s the nature of the markets. Prices will rise and prices will fall always have and always will. In fact, too many legislation being imposed on businesses and entrepreneurs by various busy bodies and lawmakers can hinder their operations, therefore market prices can be widely distorted.
President Ronald Reagan once said: Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.
I had posted a link on this blog on one of the threads in the past about the definition of rights but obviously you haven’t read it. Consumers don’t have rights to food. Workers don’t have rights to a job. Basically, I don’t have rights to what is yours and you don’t have rights to what is mine. The supermarket doesn’t belong to or owned by consumers. That property belongs to their shareholders not the potential buyers (consumers). May I ask you this? Does the supermarket have rights to your money? If not then why not? Do they demand that you (consumer) must come and shop with them (perhaps enforced by law)? NO, they don’t have rights to your money the same as consumers don’t have rights to the products on the supermarket shelves.
I have also posted links to peer review economic researches done overseas on this blog which showed that raising minimum wages will increase youth unemployment rate. It seems that MPs (both National & Labour) don’t want to read about facts or ignore them completely, instead you lot try to push issues in Parliament that are based on emotions (may be altruism), false philosophy, etc,…
@ Falafulu Fisi: President Ronald Reagan once said: Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Did you just go through the same global financial crisis that the rest of us did? You know, the one where the SEC was caught napping, the US Treasury caught flat footed, and the economists who thought that market players would regulate themselves and avoid “irrational behaviour” (driven by greed and completely short term self intrest) were completely wrong?
Or are you one of the crowd who believes that the whole financial and banking melt down could have been prevented if Governments had regulated markets even less and given market participants even more freedom to play however they wanted?
As the Tui ad goes: yeah right.
The proper functioning of markets for large corporate players DOES NOT take a higher importance than the proper functioning of our society, and our economy’s ability to grow entrepreneurial strength at its grass roots, thank you.
Would you like me to post links on how your philosophy of free market neo-liberalism manages to both decrease wages AND increase unemployment AT THE SAME TIME?
Sorry your suggestions are just plain awful for NZ, as is your ability to say that the behaviour of these supermarket chains is OK just because we can elect to keep the money in our wallets (but as a natural consequence find it extremely hard to purchase all the ingredients required to put on a nice tea) :rolleyes:
And for your comment: consumers don’t have rights to food etc.
I’m going to get a little irritated in a moment.
Consumers have very specific and limited rights around not being ripped off and not being lied to, etc. OK, they have no right to food, housing, healthcare, etc.
Citizens in NZ have every frakkin’ right to food, housing, healthcare, etc.
And I’ve only been in the Labour Party for ~months but already I realise that this party has a better chance of treating New Zealanders as CITIZENS and not as frakkin’ CONSUMERS!!!!
The nice thing about this, is that this approach can be used to make new Zealand a rich country: citizens can produce great technology, products and services within the context of a great society. Consumers, meh. They consume, and don’t care where it comes from, who it helps/hurts, and just want it to be cheap please. Exactly like the corporates want us and our politicians to think about the free market.
Meh
Loota,
Before I waste my time explaining rights to you, may I suggest you read the following? Once you’ve done that, then come back and try to make your case.
A follow up reading for you after you’ve done the above, is shown below:
Rights (Importance of Philosophy)
All the bogus rights that socialists are babbling about such as I have mentioned above are not rights per se. They are rights given to those who don’t have them (or earned them legitimately) via legislative coercion, which means that they’re not legitimate at all. Yep, just legislate the rights of the property owners away and give them to those who don’t own them. This is call legalize theft.
Reason starts from primary and not the other way round (i.e., upside down). That’s exactly what you are. Your reasoning is inverted (i.e., upside down – not primary at all or not originated from first principles).
If you have any valid points to put forward as a counter-argument about rights (without you resorting to typical socialists default position that rights can be given to others who don’t earn them, via a stroke of a pen – i.e., legislation), then I don’t want to waste my time arguing with you.
Oh, BTW, markets failed because of government interventions (as Reagan said it correctly). Spontaneous order that arises in the market doesn’t make it fail. Tingling with it with too many legislation is what makes it unstable which will lead to occasional failure.
Finally, I suggest that you dig around the Importance of Philosophy site and read more articles from there because it will open up your mind up to reason.
I forgot to include the link in my previous post, but you can start with Not PC blog post on rights, which is found here:
Cue Card Libertarianism : Rights
and then continue on with :
Rights (Importance of Philosophy)
Falafulu Fisi: Sorry this can’t possibly be correct but you appear to be saying that neocon free market liberalism and the disappearance of Government intervention in the economy and the markets = a desirable society of basic human rights?
:Shakes head:
I don’t think so, Tim.
Why don’t you dig around in your own philosophy sites a little more and maybe this time focus on branches of knowledge like SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS and AESTHETICS this time around, instead of the branch of philosophy called RONALD REAGAN.
Loota while I can see the point you are making you do overlook one vital fact: most people are mere consumers in that they really do not care about who made their goods and where they came from.
Why else would The Warehouse, McDonalds, Nike etc and our very own pork & chicken industries still be doing so well despite all the negative exposure?
Money dictates: unethical products are cheaper.
In terms of Farmers Markets, not sure about where you guys are, but in Wellington they are not always significantly cheaper.
Subsidise farmers
Hard to shop around when you cannot afford to run a car. Has she never tried to go to supermarket to supermarket while traveling on a bus with two preschoolers?
Love to see her try. You would have to travel between nap times, carry it all home and push a pram while one walks may carrying one in a sling. Shop around is not always an option.
@ Rebecca – agreed most people are in the mindset of being consumerists, not being citizens.
In Dunedin – the Farmers’ Market is not necessarily cheaper than the supermarkets, you are right. For me however, there is some satisfaction knowing that the local grower gets all the money though, not just =<20% of it with the rest of the hard currency shipped back to Woolworths HQ.
@ Falafulu – also you seem to describe neocon free market liberalism with minimal state participation in the economy as the singular, inevitable result of reasoned, rational intellectual thought and that there are no options.
Of course, high income per capita countries like Singapore, Japan, China, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. put a total lie to that.
Re: China – soz income per capita is increasing very quickly but of course it is still regarded as low on the totem pole in that measure due to its large inland population.
@Rebecca – I have a friend who is heavily into fair trade – he said he checked out the warehouse and found it to be clean
@A Mother – aw, that would be very hard.
As I’ve said before. We don’t know how lucky we are. Not that many starving people about in NZ and many that could do with cutting back a little. As prices rise on food people should turn to growing their own and utilising the free food in the local area. Many survived really difficult conditions in the 30′s by hard work and common sense. Common sense seems a lot less common these days.
Supermarket mark ups:
Abu Dhabi supermarket: imported halved walnuts fom USA. Cost $9 per kg
Countdown Supermarket NZ: imported halved walnuts from USA $39 per kg.
Only one item but….
Think about milk price. The better “we” are at producing milk the more we pay in the shop.
It follows therefore that if the overseas milk market fell right away, we would buy milk for say 10cents per litre. Pray!
Falafulu Fisi: What a load of selfish rubbish. Some of us are concerned for communal welfare. You are trying to justify the selfish winner takes all. Shame on you.
the mark-ups that supermarkets are making on fresh produce
When you take a moment to think about it, it’s perfectly logical that fresh produce has the highest markup – it has the highest maintenance costs.
Fresh produce doesn’t stay fresh very long. Cold storage costs a lot. There’s also a comparatively higher loss from wasted product than with other supermarket (packed) items.
Abu Dhabi supermarket: imported halved walnuts fom USA. Cost $9 per kg.
Countdown Supermarket NZ: imported halved walnuts from USA $39 per kg.
Transport costs?
Seasonal price variation?
Taxes?
@ Ianmac – if Falafulu Fisi’s ‘name’ is a take on what I think it is, he/she is certainly full of it.
Loota said…
Why don’t you dig around in your own philosophy sites a little more and maybe this time focus on branches of knowledge like SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS and AESTHETICS this time around
Obviously, you’re arguing from a position of ignorance. Ethics, aesthetics and everything else can be traced back to first principles, would you care to read up on those? Reality is not contradictory. There can be no ethics without rights? Is it ethical to regulate a private property owner and take away his/her rights to what is his/hers and give away to others?
All the rights you have mentioned above are bogus, and I noted that you haven’t managed to come up with a counter-argument to what rights are. All you did was put forward assertions. In fact assertion is no more than an arbitrary claim (according to epistemology). I suggest that you try to read that Philosophy website but I think that you refused to.
Loota said…
@ Falafulu – also you seem to describe neocon free market liberalism with minimal state participation in the economy as the singular, inevitable result of reasoned, rational intellectual thought and that there are no options. Of course, high income per capita countries like Singapore, Japan, China, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. put a total lie to that.
Free means free. You’re confusing mixed economy (free plus frequent government intervention) with free market. There are no free markets in the world. The US is not. Loota, if you can’t explain why the so called rights to food, rights to healthcare, rights to education and rights to a job (which are all bogus) should be legitimate rights, then don’t post anymore nonsense here, because you’re evading or arguing by obfuscation and epistemological evasion. Address why those rights are legitimate without self-contradictions.
Ianmac said…
Some of us are concerned for communal welfare.
Irrelevant argument. I care for my community too, who doesn’t? I donate my free time whenever possible to help out with education of children of members (Church). It is not right, to expect taxpayer dollars (which belong to others) to run the program that I am doing. I have said, to some members of the community, if you’re going to apply/seek funding for the program that I run, then they will have to find someone else to do it. Well, they stick with me, because they have seen how I have turned the average students around to become successful over the years. Well not success 100%, but more students have done better than if they had been left to themselves. My community or any other in the country don’t have RIGHTS to taxpayer dollars. Don’t tell me that I don’t care for my community. You (or any other human) have rights to the fruits from the labour of your own hands, not from others hands. When you take from others, then their rights are being violated. Your idea for caring for others, is that other people should foot the bill and that’s what you get it wrong. There is nothing wrong with caring for others (we all do), but do not take from Paul to give it to the care of Peter. Use your own pocket.
Jilly Bee said…
Falafulu Fisi’s ‘name’ is a take on what I think it is, he/she is certainly full of it
Yes, Jilly Bee, my name is full of it. I offered reason, you offered none. Others offered nonsense. Have you got something to contribute? Taking a snide is not an argument. It is called a troll. Go ahead, come up with a counter argument if you think that I am full of it.
Falafulu Fisi:
Ah. There you have it: “You (or any other human) have rights to the fruits from the labour of your own hands, not from others hands.” My point exactly. The community has a responsibility to work for the common good for there lies strength. Every man left to market forces will be swept away.
Quoting Reagan! *ppffff* I almost sprayed my computer screen with coffee.
Ok, I’d agree with dear ol Reagan with the addition of an adjective:
Stupid Government is not a solution to our problem, stupid government is the problem
Falafulu Fisi you imagine that your free market neocon positions are somehow the only alternative in the world for a prosperous and happy life. Seriously, go read Aristotle, Socrates or Marcus Aurelius for your “philosophy” not Ayn Rand.
As for the issue of “rights” maybe you should go read the charter of the UNHCR or any other organisation interested in protecting the rights of the many, not the commercial interests of the few.
As NZ’ers we live in a society where we do have rights to healthcare, rights to privacy, rights to fair treatment and to due process. We have those rights because generations before us have decided to deliberately shape the kind of society we live in, free of your deconstructionist mish-mash of ideas.
I suggest you go try living in your own version of a mean spirited society where all of these “rights” and more are non-functional and ignored.
As for you caring for your community – I think your version of “community” is outstandingly narrow, as is your appreciation of what other people are willing to do (and give) for their communities.
As for your Church work – that reminds me that the “Church” helped create the basis of the modern tax system and enforced their takings with military and moral might.
And here’s one last lesson in philosophy Falafulu Fisi – humans give their own meaning to the structures, events and systems around them, not you.
The duopoly in supermarkets proves one thing – that supermarkets should be government owned with a mandate to pass on the full price minus costs to the suppliers.
Ianmac said…
The community has a responsibility to work for the common good for there lies strength. Every man left to market forces will be swept away.
Doe your argument support of what Carol had posted above, when she stated that, consumers are very reliant on supermarket companies for something that is fundamental – food. We need to have scrutiny on whether these powerful companies and their behaviour to consumers and suppliers.
None at all. Why scrutinize supermarkets when in fact they don’t owe consumers anything? This is the heart of the argument. You scrutinize a private company for nothing more than just trying to dictate to them of how to run their own business as they see fit. They don’t come with a gun and force consumers to rely on them (as Carol stated above). Whose properties are the supermarkets? Carol? Union? Consumers? Workers? Nope. They belong to their shareholders (rightful owners). Why aren’t their rights being protected then? That is their rights to enjoy of what they own. They don’t violate anyone’s rights in the first place. Consumers are free not to go to the supermarket. The danger of not treating rights in the context of first principles is that anything can be arbitrarily deemed as rights, e.g., it is now being discussed online (even on this blog) that people have rights to internet access, which we know it’s nonsense.
Get your head around the notion that others rights must not be violated, because you’ve just stated a contradiction in your argument above. The supermarkets have rights not to be interfered with what they do, since they don’t go around with guns and force people/consumers to go shopping with them. The market forces you talk about don’t violate your rights one single iota and if you think so, then please give an example here.
Carol you are quite right-foreign owned supermarkets have far too much control in NZ-but they are nothing compared to the foreign owned banks. We need to take control of our ecenomy-these big businesses have it all their own way. It is time we claimed our country back. Foreign business buys us up, then over charges dcustomers while ripping off suppliers and paying pathetic wages. We need to stand up to it.
Falafulu Fisi – thanks for continuing to ignoring the daily living constraints that people must work with every day and how major corporations can use them to leverage citizens into disadvantage.
Since you don’t believe that NZ’ers have any inherent right to be fed and not go hungry, please stop commenting on supermarkets because you are clearly only doing it from the corporate view point.
As for market forces violating peoples’ rights – what a laugh, since you don’t believe people have rights to food, healthcare, privacy or education I’m not sure what you think is left to violate.
So I guess de facto you have set up a mind game where there can be no market forces (corporate) violation of a persons’ rights.
I suggest YOU get your head around the notion that the rights of people and of citizens are not superceeded by the rights of non-human entities like corporations.
Thank you.
Loota said…
As for the issue of “rights” maybe you should go read the charter of the UNHCR or any other organisation interested in protecting the rights of the many, not the commercial interests of the few.
You’re good at evading aren’t you? I asked you to support your argument that consumers have rights (or workers have rights to a job, etc,…) and you have failed, but instead you’re advising me to go and read the UNHCR charter, that somehow the first principles will be invalidated. Nice try, but reading such a charter will not alter the definitions of rights according to first principles.
Loota said…
As NZ’ers we live in a society where we do have rights to healthcare, rights to privacy, rights to fair treatment and to due process.
You’re arguing by repetition, where you think that somehow, repeating an invalid point will make it become valid. You haven’t explained to me what rights are. I challenged you to do so and all you do is repeating, evading, obfuscation and so on. The point you have stated above is irrelevant.
Loota said…
We have those rights because generations before us have decided to deliberately shape the kind of society we live in, free of your deconstructionist mish-mash of ideas.
Again, you’re not arguing on what rights is as related to man’s nature of existence, but you’re arguing based on culture which is again, you’re arguing from a position of ignorance. Rights as of first principles transcend all cultures and all races and that is what I am arguing here about. According to you, since some cultures have been doing something for generations, therefore it becomes automatically an inalienable rights to keep doing so. Wrong. In that case, some cultures where the abuse of women by men is tolerated (i.e., the norm) simply because it has been practiced by generations before and therefore they’re regarded as their (men’s) rights to do so. See, you get all sorts of contradictions when you don’t start with rights as in the context of first principles?
I think that I have made my case in my arguments here very clear and I don’t think that I am going to comment any further, since all you do is evade, repeat (irrelevant points), obfuscate, give unsupported assertions and so forth. Not worth my time responding to.
Lol, Falafulu Fisi, once you stoop to comparing my positions to spousal abuse I know you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I hope your “first principles” keep you warm and happy at night because from the way you describe them, they aren’t going to create a warm and happy society anywhere, and I know of no actual society which has survived based on what you describe as “rights”.
Which are pretty damn useless as rights since you exclude the right to water, the right to food, the right to healthcare, etc. so unless you are a corporate entity leveraging its superior rights of first principle over the citizenry, I don’t think your opinion is right.
I wish farmers and market gardens would sell direct more, in other parts of the world it is easy to sign up for a $x basket of fruit/veg/meat to be delivered to your door (or collected from the farm gate) once a week/month. The price is lower than Supermarket but higher than supermarket pays producer. Win-win for everyone (except of course the supermarket but hey..)
We buy as local as we can, its good for the economy
“As for your Church work – that reminds me that the “Church” helped create the basis of the modern tax system and enforced their takings with military and moral might.”
That is true Loota but not all Churchgoers have a narrow minded and Capitalist approach to Economics – Look at the first Labour P.M of NZ, Michael Joseph Savage,He was a Churchgoer yet he is the man we have to thank for introducing our Welfare System.
@ Matt Collins – definitely noted. The essence and the flavour of deeply held values transmuted into compassionate, practical, ground breaking action. Bring it on Labour.