Someone’s in the kitchen…
I was amused this morning to see this New Zealand First press release suggesting that the Government hand over the Buy Kiwi-Made campaign to New Zealand First to look after:
“This critical policy needs a champion that understands the true intent and value of promoting our own products, not who will send confused and muddled signals to New Zealanders looking to support local producers and manufacturers. This is really a case of the Greens not being able to handle the heat and therefore needing to vacate the kitchen,” concluded Mr Brown.
A little frog helpfully suggested that the following would be an appropriate response:
Mr Brown has a short memory. He and his party ensured that the Greens were not in the kitchen following the last election, his leader by-passed the kitchen and has his feet up in the (airport) lounge while the rest of
his party, including his deputy, Mr Brown, are not even allowed to look in the windows.Mr Brown is the last person we would take advice from on how to exert political influence.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
In my humble opinion, the Greens are the _least_ likely party to immediately capitulate to “the good of industry” at the first sign of resistance from businesses with other agendas.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Yes, it’s quite obvious that every party other than the Greens, wants to use the ‘Buy NZ Made’ scheme as a heaven-sent opportunity to gain popularity and acclaim from the financial sector. Make it gutless, worthless, and (what matters) get more votes by kow-towing to them.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
goodonya sue..!….hang tough on this one..eh..?
(apart from anything else..this is the deal the (now weaseling) weasels struck with you post-election…
so..you have rightousness as well as right on your side…)
(who needs more made in taiwan made in new zealand stickers anyway..?..
haven’t we already been there and done that..?..over and over..?
i reckon you’ll get the punters on side on this one..and the greens will come out of it looking good…and with a good result..
as i said…hang tough..!
phil(whoar.co.nz
August 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Helen Clark asked the question “why shouldn’t iconic NZ companies like Fisher and Paykel and Icebreaker be included in the Buy NZ made program”?
My problem is that Fisher & Paykel imports most of its product from two sources - China and Australia.
All of its Whirlpool appliances, including the dishwashers that it rebadges and sells under the F&P brand, are imported from China, though the parent company is based in the US. Most of the laundry, ovens and refridgeration is pulled in from Australia.
F&P isn’t a New Zealand company any more - it may be partly NZ owned, but it operates (and exploits) the international marketplace, as any company is free to do so. The difference being that I don’t wont my tax dollars used as a free marketing campaign for F&P who stopped producing dishwashers in Mosgiel, Dunedin and started importing them from China and rebadging them instead. If F&P want to exploit their NZ heritige then they are more then welcome to do so with their impressive marketging budget.
I’m all for the reasons behind the buy NZ campaign - it supports local companies, it supports local workers, it provides an incentive to reduce the airmiles that the stuff we consume has. I hope that the Greens stick firm on all 3 principles - don’t cave to pressure. Let F&P stick their NZ-made tags on their Dishdrawer, its still made on the Taeiri, but don’t let their awful Chinese dishwashers anywhere near your program.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
All I can say is ‘ouch’. But Mr Brown had that one coming.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
In the absence of detailed info on how the campaign might be implemented (not that I’ve looked too hard yet :- ), I’d like to suggest/hope that a suitable web-based tool be made available so consumers can make choices on products, brands and companies as a whole, rather than just seeing a sticker on an individual product in a shop.
Hopefully this would allow F&P, Icebreaker etc to have some visibility in the programme, but still give consumers access to more detailed data so they can make informed choices.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
This is a ‘make or break’ issue for the Green Party. Either they stand their ground or they’ll be ground into the dust, politically, for good. It isn’t the Greens who need to compromise, it’s the two polarized main parties - who invariably on principle reject each other’s better policies. historically, the Greens have always had the greatest effect on NZ when outside parliament; letting the other parties steal their policies, without acknowledgement, and -ridiculing the party - call them their own. Doesn’t really matter which party is in power, red, blue, whatever - so long as they have been forced by political ambition to adopt more and more green thinking in order to survive. Far better that than a sterile Green Party with a lot of seats. Like Social Credit when it first gained a seat.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:42 am
“… a champion that understands the true intent and value of promoting our own products, not who will send confused and muddled signals to New Zealanders …”
I wonder if some of that “fuss” is based on Sue Bradford’s so called “interview” by Kathryn Ryan on Radio NZ “Nine to Noon”.
I found it an apalling interview: supposedly a three way affair with Sue as the Pro “Kiwi Made” Campaign on the phone, and the Anti (from “Ice Breaker” who manufacture overseas). He was in the studio and had spoken at length before Sue joined the convrersation. Kathryn, having allowed the Anti to dominate the discussion, then interrupted and talked over Sue. To make it worse, there seemed to be a problem with Sue’s phone line. It is to Sue Bradford’s credit that she survived the ordeal, but she didn’t manage to come across with her usual “calm certainty”.
I’m sure there would have been letters of complaint about that interview, regardless of listeners’ political persuasions.
August 19th, 2006 at 3:04 am
I love Icebreaker products, I’ve bought them for myself and as gifts the last three times I’ve been back to NZ. But it became clear to me in January this year that they were phasing out NZ manufacturing and shifting most or all of it to China. (I say this from the evidence of looking at their end-of-line items in the shops versus the newly released items.)
That’s pretty sad IMO. They want to trade on NZ’s image but would rather maximise their profit margin by using Chinese labour. They see no reason to keep jobs and skills in NZ.
Well, that’s their choice. Maximising profits is the name of their game, not what is good for NZ. But why should they object to people wanting to promote NZ-made products? If the New Zealand public supports a NZ-made campaign, and the politicians believe it is acceptable to use tax money for this purpose, Icebreaker should stop complaining and just get on with their own business. The companies who pay higher labour costs because they manufacture in NZ will claw some (a tiny bit) of that back through the benefits of a NZ-made campaign. Sounds fair enough to me.
August 19th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Why are people who produce products in other countries less deserving of consumer’s money than those who produce it in their own? Will the “foreigners” spend it on something impure (i.e. their own family’s needs)? It’s pure unadulterated nationalism, of the kind the national front proudly supports. It is the economic philosophy of north Korea.
It has not the slightest economic rationale behind it, because it inherently means people paying more for the same thing, which means less of something else - if the rest of the world applied it to New Zealand, it would be a developing country unable to afford foreign made pharmaceuticals, machinery, electronics or the like.
NZ companies should fund their own buy NZ made campaign if they think it gives them a marketing advantage - if the products are inferior and more expensive than imported ones, then tough luck if no one buys them. No reason why NZers should subsidise the marketing efforts by NZ manufacturers and primary producers (the service sector typically gets nothing out of this, as services are more difficult to be nationalistic about).
August 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
“Why are people who produce products in other countries less deserving of consumer’s money than those who produce it in their own?”
1. NZ manufacturers have to meet minimum standards for worker health, safety and renumeration. There is no guarantee foreign labourers have the same protection.
2. Ditto for environmental standards.
3. Supporting local industry is a public good, like investing in education. Interestinglyall advanced so-called capitalist economies like the US and Japan have protected their own industries. It is not simply the economics of North Korea.
4. NZ companies employing NZ workers will be sharing the profits more equally between workers, management and shareholders. This would also be good for the economy as workers will have more money in their pockets, as well as being more ethical in that all those involved in production get a reasonable share of the profit from it.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Tochigi:
Yes, Ice Breaker has been doing well !
In the outdoor (especially mountain) gear and clothing area we have several companies designing and producing great stuff. Two of these (that I know of) have made the decision to continue manufacturing entirely in Aotearoa. The others are getting at least some of their work done “off shore” in China etc.
The Kiwi Made Campaign (one of the late Rod Donald’s ideas) is to provide a special Government funded package to promote the products of Kiwi owned businesses that operate in Aotearoa/NZ using Kiwi employees.
Ice Breaker and others are now asking to be part of this because they are a “Kiwi owned” Company. This was NOT part of the intention of the campaign which the Greens negotiated with the Labour Party after the last election in return for Green Support (often crucial) for the Labour led Government in “Confidence and Supply” matters.
Sue Bradford did agreed to look into the possibility of an associated role for such companies, but not within the campaign itself, so it is an interesting situation.
Liberty Scott:
Please do everyone a favour and “put your word sheet away” … Your time would be much better spend sorting out the holes in your chosen mantra, for this situation at least.
Actually with export /import / transport and various taxes, apparently the unit price of a garment manufactured in NZ with local labour is not significantly higher than the China made product … but the sewing is superior and the overall advantage to Aotearoa/NZ is much greater … I heard THAT on National Radio “Nine to Noon” from an expert in these things, on the day following the (”appaling”) interview I mentioned above.
… and I do know a lot about outdoor clothing and gear, its design and manufacture here and its potential markets …
eredwen
(”ered”= mountain + “wen” = woman : JRR Tolkein)
August 19th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
thanks eredwen for the backgrounf info!
and thanks kiore1 for taking the time to reply above.
and slightly off-topic, but relevant IMO, given the earlier comments, here is one of the best comments I ever read on peakoil.com:
(by fluffy/UK/28Oct2005)
” Trade and markets can, of course, do some great things, introducing new technologies, new consumer products, making things cheaper and more widely available, etc - capitalism in itself should not be dismissed outright. But free market systems by definition strongly discount the future, and this can and does cause serious problems with fundamental industries such as those above.”
August 19th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Liberty Scott:
I should add that “outsourced-to-Asia” manufacture commonly (usually) leads to “a faster job” where less accurate cutting and less secure sewing (often with inferior thread and usually with inadequate, or no seam finishing) reduces the life of the garment considerably, which is a sad waste of the superior and long lasting materials/fabrics used … AND the cheaper job is often at the expense of exploited workers .
People are not purchasing “the same thing” they are purchsing a less durable “look alike” for slightly less money, which actually costs much more in the longrun as it has to be replaced sooner, and potentially uses more fossil fuel for transport.
I have well designed high quality mountain gear that has been in regular use for several decades … having been handed on to equally active family members. With the materials available today it just doesn’t make sense to “save on the sewing”. Canada, for example has several brands that are proudly Canadian designed and made. (Arc’teryx is one example.) I haven’t been in Europe for a while but like Arc’teryx many of the top products have been traditionally produced in small mountain towns … “local industry” providing local employment (and saving on fosil fuels for travel.)
This quick contribution to the discussion is basically to say that there is a lot more to think about here, besides “cheaper costs” in money terms …
August 19th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
tochigi !
Sorry I was busy writing and missed your post … we seem to be singing from the same hymn book however!
August 19th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
eredwen,
yes, product durability and running costs (in the case of housing, etc.) are crucial considerations, but our current system discourages us from thinking about “costs over the entire product life-cycle”, and encourages us to choose the cheapest up-font price.
and using up all the planet’s finite resources as fast as possible is likewise “strongly discounting the future”, or in more common terms, “trashing the future”.
August 20th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
tochigi Says: “yes, product durability and running costs (in the case of housing, etc.) are crucial considerations, but our current system discourages us from thinking about “costs over the entire product life-cycleâ€?, and encourages us to choose the cheapest up-font price.”
I totally agree with this statement and it is a conversation I constantly find myself having with friends who shop at the Warehouse, but most fail to see the logic of the argument and fail to see the long-term picture either.
Another thing that saddens me is that so many (non-politically active) people I talk to about buying cheaper imported goods seem to genuinely believe that overseas workers are no worse off for this. When I mention their longer work hours and minimum pay I mostly get a response such as “Oh well, the cost of living is much cheaper there, so doesn’t that balance out?” I try to explain that it’s not cost of living but “standard of living” which is the issue and make the connection about the impact this has to employment and wages in NZ. But all I seem to get is blank stares.
Consumer power is a very powerful force IMO, but I just don’t know how we are going to be able to harness that in the face of so much self-centred apathy. I see the need to raise the public awareness of these issues in the media and spread a better understanding of the positive impacts for ordinary workers and the NZ economy. This will hopefully gain wider support to get the bill passed exactly as Rod wanted it.
Kiore1 I am very much enjoying your contributions to this thread, and Mountain Woman - very interesting info as always.
zANavAShi
(�zan�= woman + “vahshi� = set free from captivity : old persian dialect)
August 20th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
There seem to be some quite knowledgeable people on this post. This being the case, I would like your opinion of the one claim by the pro-trade lobby that does seem to have some merit.
It is often claimed that if we did not buy from China that the Chinese would be worse off, because they would be unemployed. I am not sure if this is the case, but I do know that in their recent book on the ethics of what we eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason argue that it does more good to buy a product from a farmer in Kenya, even though he may only keep about 2% of the profit, than to buy from an already reasonably well off local farmer. The Chinese workers do not own the means to their production like the Kenyan farmer, so this argument may not hold, but I would be interested in comments from the rest of you.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
First, regarding the Kenyan farmer, I think buying organic fair-trade coffee, tea, bananas and other produce that can only be grown at certain latitudes and altitudes is worthwhile since we can’t produce it ourself and the farmers a given a fair price for using sustainable practices. Their reliance on irrigation and chemicals is also reduced if the crops are grown organically (especially where using permaculture design).
But from what I’ve read, the major UK supermarket chains import a lot of vegetable produce from Kenya and other African countries, with a lot of the farms being massive corporate operations employing local people for very low wages and poor conditions. On top of that, if the production is done using a lot of water and chemicals, the soil and acquifers will be depleted, and chemical contamination and salination will result.
Rather than relying on low-wage jobs or selling produce for export at a fraction of the UK supermarket price, the Kenyan farmers would be better off producing their own food and some cash crops in ways that are sustainable. It is quite possible that traditional cash crop income has been destroyed by subsidised US and European products flooding their domestic market and overseas export markets, making them dependent on the aforementioned jobs and crops.
As for Chinese factory workers, in the short term, some Chinese might benefit from production and export of mass produced consumer items for rich-country markets. But in the long term this is not sustainable since their environment and resources are being depleted and degraded at an alarming rate, threatening their health and leading to all sorts of man-made disasters.
On top of that, working conditions are often appalling and can only be maintained that way because of a never-ending supply of rural-to-urban labour migration. When one lot of workers is too ill or angry to keep going, they are sacked and the next lot is wheeled in. Repeat cycle ad nauseum.
In decades gone by, we’ve seen factory-based export-driven growth in East Asia, starting with Japan and moving through Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand. But he scale and ruthlessness of the Chinese factory phenomenon is on a completely new level.
I personally cannot see a happy ending this time. A combination of environmental disaster, Peak Oil and US dollar collapse are possible factors that will lead to an end to the current status quo, IMHO.
August 20th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Indeed, the accelerating growth of China’s consumer aspirations will soon collide head-on with the global economic contraction that is inevitable in the face of shrinking available cheap energy.
The free-market fundamentalists would have us believe the market will adjust demand and supply of absolutely everything accordingly, but the market isn’t free, it will be too slow to respond in any case, and we are dealing with human cultures - the last thing you would call rational. As far as I can see, positive outcomes are anything but certain.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Nice comments Tochig, but I’m not so sure about Chinese workers benefitting in the short term - the ILO reckons nearly half a million Chinese a year die from workplace accidents or work-related diseases.
Scott says “It’s pure unadulterated nationalism, of the kind the national front proudly supports.”. Scott, this is just silly name calling - there is no sign of anti-foreigner xenophobia evident here, my preference for NZ-goods is based on reducing transport impacts and keeping my own community healthy and prosperous. If you can demonstrate that buying a foreign-made product benefits the environment (at least some do), I’ll gladly buy it.
It’s questionable as to whether buying cheap foreign stuff benefits people here - cheap imports reduce prices, and this has a resulting effect on inflation. In the real world, most people’s wage rises follow inflation. If it’s low, you get a low pay rise, so any benefits of cheap consumer goods are cancelled out by lower wages. Obviously, the link is only limited and only evident over long time periods.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Sam,
My comment was highly qualified: “in the short term, some Chinese might benefit”, so I think we are in general agreement.
I also think that a general fall in the cost of manufactured goods through extreme labour arbitrage (i.e. factory wages in China vesus OECD countries) will lead to downward wage pressure in the importing countires. The evidence I’ve seen is the fall in median household income in the U.S. over the last six years, even when based on dodgy CPI stats produced by the Fed.
A lot of analyses on where the benefits of cheap imports are accruing suggest a large chunk is turning up in corporate profits, consumers are getting a small benefit and workers are losing out.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 am
Interesting comments from Tochigi and Sam. I agree with both posts about the long term harms, and I certainly agree that free trade deals harm workers in New Zealand. I am not so sure about the short term effect on Chinese workers.
In the case of Kenyan farmers, if they have any control over the products of their own labour, then their income will be proportional to the profits made. In the case of Chinese workers, this would not be the case. If the companies making the cheap goods made more profits, it would just mean more money for the shareholders and the workers would not profit. But if Western countries do boycott Chinese goods, then at some point the companies will make no profits at all, and then the workers would be worst off, because they will be fired.
I am not sure of what the solution is, but I think the situation is pretty complex with no easy answers.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Humans have a history of coming up with good ideas, refining them and carrying them on … sometimes (often?) to the point of idiocy. The important thing is for us to recognise when that point is approaching, or has been reached.
The current Saga that depresses me is:
the use of scarce resources, that people with few choices will, for low wages / bad working conditions, make into inferior, designed-to-fall-apart “stuff” (cheap but looks good) which is sent across the World and advertised unmercifully so that other “cogs in the system” feel compelled to buy it, use it for a while and then throw it unthinkingly into unsorted landfill … (an incredibly wasteful use of now-very-difficult-to-recover resources.)
Money, originally used as a tool has become “an end in itself” the ‘raison-d’etre’. A few people at the top get very rich, others aspire to do so, and many work in meaningless (and often dangerous) jobs for very litttle renumeration. Thus the resources of this already seriously overpopulated planet are squandered along with the lives of many of the people who are part of this INCREDIBLY STUPID system. In this process we seldom if ever give thought to the other life forms with whom we share this planet.
I mourn the day that Aotearoa so “wholeheartedly” joined into this “cargo cult” mentality. (Sorry, “Free Market Economy” is the official term!)
The big question is “how do we modify what we are doing?” We, as a whole community, urgently need to weigh up the pros and cons (at the personal, local, national and international level) and look to the future.
At least the Greens are doing this …
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
kiore1 says:
“In the case of Kenyan farmers, if they have any control over the products of their own labour, then their income will be proportional to the profits made.”
First of all, that’s a pretty big “if”. When you say “any control over the products of their own labour”, are you referring to (1) what they produce; (2) how it is produced; (3) who they sell it to; and (4) how much they sell it for? “Any control”, of course, if not a hard test to pass, but “a meaningful level of control”, IMHO would be quite unusual for a small-lot farmer in Kenya who is dependent on cash income from their labour.
The farmer needs seeds, water, and other inputs for his or her crops. Is the farmer free to decide what they grow and how it is grown? It is rather unlikely that they will be selling directly to Tescos or Sainsburys, so there is likely to be one or several intermediaries taking thier cut. Let’s say the farmer grows snow peas, which eventually end up in a U.K supermarket. What percentage of the retail price is the farmer getting? Is it “proportional to the profits made”? Unless it’s a fair trade scheme, which are often used for coffee and a few other items, this seems quite unlikely, but I imagine there are some farmers receiving a fair price. I just cannot see them being anything like a majority though.
kirore1 says:
“But if Western countries do boycott Chinese goods, then at some point the companies will make no profits at all, and then the workers would be worst off, because they will be fired.”
Indiscriminate boycotts are unlikey to be effective. But if a particular product is being produced using inhumane conditions for workers, a targeted boycott might be the way to go. Will the workers lose thier jobs? Possibly. Will they be better or worse off? If the employer improves working conditions or if fired workers are rehired by a an employer with better practices (influenced by consumer-country pressure?), then they are better off.
Trade can be beneficial to a lot of people, but the mythical “free market” is not going to miraculously bring prosperity to the Kenyan and Chinese masses unless the end-consumers demand some bottom line standards be applied to the intermediaries making substantial profits. This might mean higher prices for consumers, but it is still our choice. Is the price worth it?