Changes on the High Street

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah the lowest common denominator “man on the street”. Salt of the earth.

He will understand poverty and observe inequality. That said his ignorance will leave him susceptible to the press, social media and he will probably be convinced once more that his enemy is his neighbour and not the system itself.

Nail on head. Probably 75% of the population right there

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

You can natter on all you please about human nature, it doesn’t justify the excesses of failed capitalism any more that it justifies robbery, fraud or other petty crime for the purposes of acquiring goods.

I’m not justifying anything, just explaining why anything other than a form of capitalism doesn’t work and never will. Just look around the globe to see all the other countries were a pure form of socialism is thriving.

Dipping the pension pot to prop up a failing business, while paying yourself dividends, and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab is “human nature”.

You’re missing the point, ant form of capitalism or socialism is open to abuse, although you do highlight the fundamental issue that I am trying to get across to you and that is fundamentally humans are greedy.

You could quite easily turn that argument to a current functioning communist model and say living in luxury whilst your citizens starve? Is that socialism?

You are also, as ever, viewing everything though a simplistic understanding that there is only capitalism or communism and not a grey area in between

There are of course differing models but the successful one are capitalist at heart. Bernie Sanders always used to point to Scandinavian countries as examples where socialism works, but they are nothing of the sort, they are very lightly regulated in most areas and certainly free market. What they are, are highly taxed.

with (regulated) markets where they work and state funded provision in areas of market failure.

The state doesn’t fund anything - a common mistake made by those that think the government can provide all. Taxpayers fund and the state manages the budget.

Certain things can be managed by the state or local government, whether it is done better or worse than the free market is open to argument.

The usual suspects being transport and health, on the other hand government intervention where it isn’t required (British Leyland) can be devastating for a whole industry.

I’m sorry you appear unable to understand the complexities of this, possibly because your adversarial political ideology doesn’t allow it, however I’m sure others can understand perfectly well.

Nice condescending sign off, I won’t rise to your feeble effort of a veiled insult.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

You can natter on all you please about human nature, it doesn’t justify the excesses of failed capitalism any more that it justifies robbery, fraud or other petty crime for the purposes of acquiring goods.

Dipping the pension pot to prop up a failing business, while paying yourself dividends, and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab is “human nature”.

You are also, as ever, viewing everything though a simplistic understanding that there is only capitalism or communism and not a grey area in between with (regulated) markets where they work and state funded provision in areas of market failure. I’m sorry you appear unable to understand the complexities of this, possibly because your adversarial political ideology doesn’t allow it, however I’m sure others can understand perfectly well.

The grey area in between is what generally happens.
All of the social services and charities fit into the grey area category encapsulated within a capitalist system that generates the wealth to fund them. And I'm sure you know this.

There are distasteful aspects of capitalism that you have regularly highlighted, such as dipping into pension funds, ripping out asset value and other predatory behaviours. However, these are exceptions not the rule.

You've said (it was you, wasn't it?) words to the effect that capitalism is one huge Ponzi scheme. If that were true, then your arguments could make progress. But it isn't so. You could single out certain businesses, perhaps Apple, Microsoft, Amazon (?) to offer three - where shares are distributed among employees, the founders obviously having an enormous stake. Is that a huge Ponzi scheme? Is the apex ending with a single person or group of persons?

Gradually, governments will regulate/tax excesses and then someone will devise a new wheeze to get round that. But basically, capitalism works and is the natural place for markets to be.

[jfman]

Quite a simplistic view of a Pozni scheme. While money flows upwards often at collapse there are multiple winners of varying scale at the top, not just a single person or entity, with far more losers at the bottom.

I’d say that encapsulates uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism pretty well.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Quite a simplistic view of a Pozni scheme. While money flows upwards often at collapse there are multiple winners of varying scale at the top, not just a single person or entity, with far more losers at the bottom.

I’d say that encapsulates uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism pretty well.

I accept your elaboration of the Ponzi scheme after I tried to keep things simple.

But the bit I've highlighted is where you've gone off into an unjustified generalisation. A gross overstatement created to suit your cynical view.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Hang on there Old Boy, you aren't claiming that Universal Credit isn't enough to live on? Or that DWP benefits pay poverty amounts that impact on human health?

The state has the ability to support people and businesses. People pay in for the best part of 50 years Old Boy and we are looking for the state to support them for a meagre three months. The underlying business models are still there - all we need is something to bridge the gap of a solid lockdown.



Given the effort taken to reduce Coronavirus deaths the comparison is completely invalid.



This sums it up in your head - "fun". Nobody is laughing Old Boy, there's absolutely nothing entertaining about tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands of bereaved families, an NHS on the brink of collapse and hundreds of thousands of NHS staff putting their very lives at risk every day to keep everyone safe.

It's a damning indictment of where you are in your head that you can use the word "fun" to describe the actions of those trying their best to prevent it. I suppose you view these people as absolute fodder - front line soldiers to go in to inevitably die while the generals (big business in your eyes) watch and await the outcome.

I thought attitudes like those died out in the 20th Century but evidently not.



Let's not Old Boy. Let's rely on medical advice and rather than spreadsheets to inform decision making. Especially is analysis of them is as atrocious as yours.

I disagree with you on so many levels, jfman, and if you read my post a little more carefully, you will see that I never suggested that coronavirus was a laughing matter. However, I do believe that the sensationalist parts of the media have been having a laugh. So take it up with them. I'm not endorsing it.

We can all see how you are winding all this up out of all proportion. It's what you do.

However, this is now off-topic, so I will end it there.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I disagree with you on so many levels, jfman, and if you read my post a little more carefully, you will see that I never suggested that coronavirus was a laughing matter. However, I do believe that the sensationalist parts of the media have been having a laugh. So take it up with them. I'm not endorsing it.

We can all see how you are winding all this up out of all proportion. It's what you do.

However, this is now off-topic, so I will end it there.

Far from Old Boy, but I’m happy to leave it there we can take it up in the coronavirus thread.

[Sephiroth]

Just to bring this down to earth, so to speak:

I and quite a few others think that the High Street as we know it is buggered. The starting point after this crisis ends will be last man standing plus small retailers who will get a lift from the Guvmin and banks.

This could all be complicated by the foreign ownership of many enterprises who might well restrict their capital to their home countries.

Likewise, office blocks may well have to be repurposed and turned into homes - a very good idea - but this shake out may well result in job losses.

We have a very complicated situation on our hands.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Just to bring this down to earth, so to speak:

I and quite a few others think that the High Street as we know it is buggered. The starting point after this crisis ends will be last man standing plus small retailers who will get a lift from the Guvmin and banks.

This could all be complicated by the foreign ownership of many enterprises who might well restrict their capital to their home countries.

Likewise, office blocks may well have to be repurposed and turned into homes - a very good idea - but this shake out may well result in job losses.

We have a very complicated situation on our hands.

There's no may well result in job losses, it will. Offices could still end up empty if the WFH works out well as a bonus for companies.

Having changed the thread title to changes on the HIGH STREET can we please now keep this discussion to changes affecting RETAILERS who do business on the HIGH STREET, because there are a range of overlapping economic factors at play that effectively make this one single topic.

Please do not let it drift further into just any business disaster that may have come about for any other reason. For example ... discussion of BA making people redundant is not a HIGH STREET issue.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

FASHION retailers Oasis and Warehouse stores won't reopen after the coronavirus lockdown is lifted putting more than 1,800 employees out of work.

Administrators were unable to rescue the company behind the brands and blames the "extraordinary challenges" the pandemic has put on the retail industry.

Hilco Capital, the former owner of HMV, is understood to have bought both brands and all of their stock but the deal doesn't include any of the fashion retailers' stores or online operations.

All 92 branches and 437 department store concessions are currently closed under government orders for all non-essential retailers to shut up shop to stop the spread of coronavirus.

But the stores won't reopen even after the lockdown is lifted.

It's understood that staff were told this morning that they wouldn't receive their statutory redundancy pay, reports Sky News.

This virus lockdown is going to ravage the high streets.

(Alt Sky news link in post)

[Pierre]

Shops can operate during restrictions, that's been proven. This big sting is the Restaurants, bars, cafes etc.

The High street was already changing into a place of leisure rather than a place of shopping.

If the bars,cafes etc go under, High Streets will become ghost towns.

The virus has given a boost to online shopping, which will likely be at the expense of actual High Street shops.

It remains to be seen how many survive, and how busy they will be, even when allowed to reopen.

[Sephiroth]

As I've said before - last man standing. And possibly a complete trashing of shopping malls and with that some big landlords.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Shops can operate during restrictions, that's been proven. This big sting is the Restaurants, bars, cafes etc.

The High street was already changing into a place of leisure rather than a place of shopping.

If the bars,cafes etc go under, High Streets will become ghost towns.

Agreed.
It had been going that way but one key area, casual dining was suffering before the Coronavirus. Many chains were closing or cutting back eg Prezzo, Gourmet Burger Kitchen, Chimichanga, CAU. The sector was suffering from over-expansion to unprofitable sites, an increase in raw material costs following the decrease in the value of the £ and increases in minimum wages and in some areas, business rates.