It's always quite something to see two politicians who have never risked any significant capital on a business in their lives, in this case Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson, deciding that it's a great idea to borrow from the next generation (and tax the current one more) so they can set up a business, bankrolled by the wealth and income of others, to compete with businesses that pay those taxes now.
They obviously think that the rhetoric that existing supermarkets are making "obscene" profits is true.
Of course if it is true then there are profits to be made in entering the sector. Those profits would come by offering cheaper prices, but also being more efficient, with fewer staff, more productivity and a lower cost base overall.
What is really remarkable is that the world is awash with competing supermarket chains in many countries. Aldi is the obvious one, as the main third player in Australia, although there are smaller ones as well like IGA and Supabarn. None of them have decided to enter the New Zealand market, which indicates one (or both) of two things:
- There aren't obscene profits being made;
- Barriers to entry are too high to make it worthwhile to enter.
If these aren't true, you'd think Swarbrick and Davidson and part of the around 10% of the population supportive of their socialist principles might club together and risk their own capital (something Swarbrick and Davidson are never too keen to do), to set up a rival and expect to get a lot of support from their supporters, if it were that easy.
Of course it's not.
What we DO know is that the RMA, working alongside territorial authorities embracing the dominant philosophy of urban planners, gets in the way of new supermarkets by making it remarkably difficult to find land and sites to build them. It seems a lot of local councillors don't like stuff being built, and on top of that they listen to encumbent supermarkets whenever a new one is proposed somewhere, and listen to arguments about how a new supermarket would "undermine" existing ones, or other shops.
On top of that many councillors, espousing the policies of the Green Party, aren't keen on cars and carparks, so don't really want supermarkets built which encourage so-called "car dependence" (a term used by planners to describe when too many people make choices they disapprove of, by making it akin to a chemical-biological addiction).
Supermarkets can take up a lot of land, to succeed in most parts of NZ they need carparking, and space for trucks to unload goods. They need big signs to let people know where they are. Cue the NIMBYs and the legions of local councillors only too keen to say "no not here", to those who might open a new supermarket near them.
Of course you never hear Swarbrick and Davidson talk about that, because the RMA is, at its core, legislation they philosophically support. The nationalisation of land use at a local level, where anything built new is subject to "grassroots democratic control" - code for whoever shouts the loudest stops getting things done.
So instead, they want to "buy" a bunch of supermarkets. Nothing said about what happens if the owners just say no - either they will offer more of your money to buy them, generating a genuine obscene profit, or they will use state violence to coerce a sale - that's the party of kindness and peace.
Once buying them, magically they will offer cheaper food, they will thrive and the government owned supermarkets will always be full of cheap, high quality goods, with such variety and great prices, hitherto unknown absolutely everywhere that has government owned supermarkets.
No comments:
Post a Comment