Seldo.Weblog: May 2006

Bread machines are evil

I've not blogged about anything much recently, so on the basis that any blogging is better than silence, I shall blog about bread machines, and why they are evil.

Bread machines are loved by a certain type of people. They like the homey smell of it, and ignore the fact that it's massively inefficient of time, space, and electricity to bake your own bread in a dedicated bread machine. These are the same people who make their own soap and construct their own shoes because they’ve seen hundreds of years of industrial revolution and mass production lead to huge increases in the quality of life for everyone and decided to chuck it all down the toilet.

They also buy organic food, because inefficient farms make them feel better, and haven't heard that the green revolution is the only reason we didn't all starve to death in 1985.

That is all.

Stephen

01 May 2006
I believe these types of people are technically known as "tree huggers".
Most likely to be found blocking the path of a JCB.

Mikey

01 May 2006
@Stephen:Having had lunch with a group director of JCB, I'll have you know they have their own organic farming business.

@Laurie: Spoken like a true anti-foody! Although they are indeed an inefficient use of space and electricty (none of which matters if you have plenty of both. and truth be told, unless you do you are a bit silly spending all that money on a bread-making machine) they are *not* an inefficient use of time. It's incredibly easy to make bread even without a bread-making machine, let alone with one. If you are hosting a dinner party the right choice of bread can be just as important as appropriately chosen wine. Unfortunately different types of bread aren't as easily available as different types of wine.

Ben

01 May 2006
Never mind posh dinners, it is almost impossible (IME) to buy decent bread, by which I mean not steam-baked, and not containing more air than bread. The inefficient use of power I can only agree with, and can only be justified on the grounds of making as little effort as possible :).

Re organic food, while the organic movement (like Greenpeace of late) has a rather nasty anti-Progress streak (such as their global ban on GMOs), it is undeniable that current industrial farming techniques with massive over-use of fertilizers and {herb,pest}icides have caused serious environmental problems. Countries that can afford to feed themselves without these things really should do so, and research should be directed towards making it possible for poorer countries to as well...

michael, StE

01 May 2006
@Mikey: I was expecting Laurie to segue into an elegant explanation of how the enhanced economic models enabled by Web 2.0 sloganologies will bring about a revolution in JIT bread production and integrated to-the-doorstep supplychain management, thus enabling the total elimination of wasteful personal breadmaking equipment, and bringing order to the galaxy.

Sadly, he didn't.

ed

01 May 2006
What is wrong with organic food? It's much better for preventing soil infertility and water pollution, and there are also good health reasons and moral reasons for supporting things like free range meat, eggs and milk. I'm not saying that all farming should be organic, but to get mad because ANY farming is organic is to display quite a bit of ignorance about agriculture and its environmental effects.

And I really don't understand what's wrong with making your own bread. Maybe the bread maker prefers the taste. Please do not condemn us all to eating nothing but M&S microwavable junk food and pre-packaged salads till the end of time due to the "effiency".

Laurie

02 May 2006
@Mikey: just because you have no current shortage of electricity doesn't mean you should go around squandering it.

@Ben: my main beef with organic farming (and the people who buy it) in the UK is that it is touted as the best way forward, coupled with fierce, unfounded opposition to GM foods.

If everybody switched back to organic farming, there would be massive food shortages. So instead the UK (and Europe in general) pay a premium price for organic food and starve GM food research of money and space to do research, thus prolonging the harmful effects of pesticides and fertilizers in the rest of the world by denying the poor of the world with any meaningful alternative.

@Ed: there is nothing wrong with organic food per se, just the knock-on economic effects it comes with, namely a lack of investment in GM foods.

Tom Williams

02 May 2006
How is there any link between buying organic foods and a lack of research into GM foods?

Also, re: squandering electricity - do you switch your computer off at night? How often do you switch your heating on? Do you use a tumbledryer for your clothes?

Tom Williams

02 May 2006
Also, what about transport costs? Making bread yourself cuts out the transport of that bread, with only the transport of the flour (which is smaller and easier to transport, and also would need to be transported to the factory anyway) to consider.

On a similar note, my parents use a bread machine. They live 4 miles from the nearest shop selling bread. It's a lot more environmentally friendly than driving an eight-mile round trip.

marc

03 May 2006
Give (organic) peas a chance.

That was purely for comedic effect. I've never had organic peas.

Ade

03 May 2006
Im going to get the Bread Machine from my parents to the flat, just to annoy laurie.

A

Artemis

03 May 2006
and I bet he partakes of the yummy baked products

Laurie

03 May 2006
Why is it that the little itty blogs I think will be most innocuous are always the ones that generate the most comments?

Mikey

03 May 2006
Because when they are little and itty you don't put much thought and analysis in them and consequently talk drivel. Longer blogs at least make you analyse your own views. I sometimes shift my position on a certain subject in the course of writing a detailed blog (which is why they don't end up being posted)

Colin

04 May 2006
Comments... comments are nice... I remember when people used to be able to comment on my blog :-)

I have seen the elephant

The Sultan's Elephant

And so should you. It's here until Sunday!

Or if that doesn't appeal, you can follow me on my walk to work.

Ass Recognition

I was on my way home from work today, descending the last set of stairs to the south bound Northern Line platform at Leicester Square, when something ahead of me caught my attention. Watching my feet as I descended the stairs, something vaguely familiar entered my peripheral vision, and I looked up to focus on it, just in time to see a very shapely arse in a thin pair of tracksuit bottoms disappearing around the bend of the stairs.

This was no average ass. This was the proto-ass, of which all other asses are saggy, mis-shapen, inferior imitations. It didn't jiggle, or swing, it just bounced like a solid rubber ball, shifting up and down only ever so slightly as it disappeared rapidly from view. My appreciation of its qualities was significantly aided by the tracksuit bottoms, which were, as they all are, paper thin, and made of a silky material which slides easily, revealing contours in motion.

I guess it couldn't have been somebody I knew, I thought to myself, in the final seconds as I hit the bottom of the stairs. I don't know anybody who would wear tracksuit bottoms on the tube. In fact, I don't know anybody with an ass that good, full stop -- well, except for maybe my ex-housemate of 2 years ago, B. B always used to wear micro-thin pyjama bottoms around the house, an item of clothing that betters even tracksuit bottoms for ease of arse-appreciation. But B used to get off work an hour before I now do, and last I heard, he wore a suit to work.

It must have just been the ass itself that caught my attention, I decided. It was a very nice ass though, one that might be worth some mild tube-stalking. Quite easily done, strolling along the platform casually, locating the object of one's interest on the platform and standing a discreet distance away from its owner, making sure one is down-tube of your subject, thereby providing you with an excuse to frequently glance in that direction as you check the tunnel for a train. Tube stalking is every Londoner's hobby. Nothing sinister, just light entertainment as you wait two minutes for your tube to arrive.

However, today was not a good day to travel the Northern. Some sort of failure earlier in the afternoon had trains on the Charing Cross branch running with big 7-minute gaps, a recipe for packed trains and impassable platforms. So as I turned left at the bottom of the stairs, I discovered the platform too full to move anywhere. The owner of the ass had been similarly stopped, and so was immediately in front of me. The arse-possessor had apparently decided, instead of squeezing through the crowds to move along the platform, he would just stop in the entrance, blocking anyone behind him.

At this point, a total of perhaps seven seconds have elapsed since my attention was initally drawn at the top of the stairs. Vaguely irritated by his inconsiderate decision, I decided to abandon my tube-stalking plans (impractical anyway on such a crowded platform) and push past him. As I did so, I turned to glance at the owner of the arse, to at least check if the face did the posterior any justice.

And found myself face to face with ex-housemate B, with whom I then had a very pleasant twenty-minute chat.

Long-distance peripheral vision ass-recognition. Another highly-developed skill that I nevertheless cannot include on my CV.

Mikey

08 May 2006
Is this one of those profound not "itty bitty" blogs that you complain noone comments on? :-)

Laurie

09 May 2006
Well, not exactly profound. But I think it's more interesting than the bread machine one.

Oliver

09 May 2006
But it does mean that from now on your friends are going to be asking you to identify them purely by looking at their asses.

Mikey

10 May 2006
@Oliver: You can be assured that at least one friend would be very objecting to adoption of such practices!

Oliver

11 May 2006
@Mikey
You're much too modest

Laurie

11 May 2006
Oi, you two, go flirt on somebody else's website.

Popstarz this week?

This is a lot easier than texting you all: so, anybody coming? A bunch of my co-workers are going, so come and meet some Yahoos on the town! ;-)

ed

10 May 2006
So I guess you figured out whether to come out at work or not :).

Ade

11 May 2006
Are any of them cute?

Laurie

11 May 2006
Come on Friday and find out!

Crisis of Cool

The sudden discussion of cool going on across Afterlife is missing a vital point. We seem to be repeatedly touching on the fact that none of us seem to give much of a shit about MySpace. Well, I have a profile, of course, because if it's on the Internet I have a profile on it, and Karinski has a profile, and unlike me she actually uses hers properly, to find out about new music. But membership of MySpace doesn't make you cool. In fact, it's not even relevant.

"Coolness" is shorthand for "the respect of your peers". If all your peers are on MySpace, therefore, it is vitally important that you join up as well. This is why I'm on it (I have too many webbed-up friends not to be) and why Karinski is on it (it's vital for discovering new music). But if your peers aren't on it, then you don't need to be. In fact, a sixty year old granny on myspace wouldn't be cool, she would be sad. MySpace is for the young and musically avant-garde. We're not either of those groups anymore, but that doesn't make us uncool. It just makes us part of a different peer-group.

So, who are your peers, the ones you care what they think of you? Well, for me it's the Afterlife lot, it's a certain subset of my co-workers, and it's a smattering of other people across the world and the web with whom I'm in regular contact. In that particular group, I like to think I have their respect, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with my taste in music. Some people like my dancing. Some merely find me interesting conversation. In some circles -- would you belive -- my modest technical skills, collection of domain names and their combined web traffic makes me so blindingly cool you wouldn't believe.

So screw humility and admissions of uncoolness. I'm not just cool, I'm unbelievably cool. I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis. And so are you lot, and you rest assured I'm an authority on this, because I'm cool.

Graham

11 May 2006
"MySpace is for the young and musically avant-garde."

"OMG ROFL LOL! Like, OMG, I love JAmes Vlunt and Niles Barkly! Myspace is sooooooo cooooool!"
...
is how all myspace pages look to my wizened old eyes. 'Young' I'll admit, but musically avant-garde it cannot be when there are so many identikit teens on there.

Laurie

11 May 2006
Well, the impression I've got of myspace is that it's full of bands I've never heard of trying to get me to listen to them. Your description sounds a lot more like LiveJournal, tbh :-)

Mikey

11 May 2006
You are equating coolness with respect of peers?

Somehow that doesn't seem quite right. That would suggest that a collection of mathematics professors would consider a fellow mathematics genius "cool." Having spent 4 years in the corridors of the vanguard of mathematical thought I am fairly sure that's the last thing they think.
Occasionally they would think an *idea* is "cool" and therefore by extension the person who came up with that idea might be associated with that word. But I think most of them would be rather surprised if you told them they find each other cool.

ed

11 May 2006
Have to agree with Mikey. I think what you really mean to say is that not being "cool" isn't really something worth being sad about.

Laurie

11 May 2006
@Mikey: that's just because the maths professors have bought into the conformist culture that only certain people who care about certain things can be cool.

My point is that you define what is cool, because coolness is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is always willing to accept what you tell them.

Talia

12 May 2006
Jesus afterlifers. Why does anyone give a crap about being cool? Who cares? If you do then you don't live in my world where its about doing things you enjoy, rather than doing things so others see i'm doing them. I'm particularly amused that going to see unsigned bands every night might be regarded as trying desperately to be cool, rather than god forbid liking music.

Robert

12 May 2006
Laurie, I don't think you're cool, but I love your dancing andI rspect your opinions (although on most things political you're somewhat wacky).

I know more about theories of voting than anyone I know. My peers respect this, but they still mock me as a Tory geek... respect does not apparently equal cool...

Laurie

13 May 2006
Well, I think geeks are pretty cool...

Mikey

13 May 2006
Laurie, this is yet another example of your lack of distinguishing powers in some areas (re the previous boyfriends vs friends you shag debate).

You cannot counter Robert's argument by simply saying "geeks are cool". Quite apart from the fact that I think that's a false statement (I think geeks can be interesting and in many ways I have a geeky side to me but just because you approve of them doesn't mean they are cool. anyway...) that's akin to you sulkingly stomping your foot and insisting you are right.

"Cool" is a slang term that has evolved from a mixed social context. Yes you can say "geeks are cool" as a personal, subjective and not binding expression of approval just as I can say "uncool people are cool" from an anti-establishment point fo view. This is not the same use of "cool" as in the phrase "cool kids". I don't honestly know what the definition of "cool kids" is (my personal opinion is that geeks are not them, nor are mathematicians) but hopefully the above example should demosntrate that you are merely confusing two homonyms.

As for your previous comment about the conformist culture, you cannot hijack a slang term with a very particular linguistic history and claim that it's universaully applicable. When it first emerged it had a very narrow meaning. It did not have a narrow meaning because of the conformist culture. It had a narrow meaning because the particular social subgroup within which it emmerged wished to give it that meaning. Granted, subsequently the use of the term evolved and developped but currently (IMHO) it has not been expanded so far as to give it such a broad interpretation. If you wish to express general approval there are plenty of other synonyms for that. There is no need to load a perfectly specific (if undefined) term with extra information load.

Laurie

13 May 2006
@Mikey: Your argument seems to be "you can't redefine that subjective term because it conflicts massively with my own, equally subjective definition".

How many times do I have to say "Cool is what you decide is cool" for you to get my point? Of *course* I can say "geeks are cool", because *all* definitions of cool are entirely subjective, so mine is as valid as any other.

As for "hijacking" a term: the meaning of "cool" is ever-moving, ever-fluid -- what was cool in 2003 is seldom cool now, and what was cool in 1990 is so far away from what is cool now that it's almost unbelievable we ever thought it was cool. "Cool" has a meaning that changes from moment to moment, so there is in no easier word to redefine for your own purposes, because there is an existing cultural expectation that the definition will change, and people are always willing to be reinformed of what the Next Cool Thing is.

But in any case, I did not intend to get into a linguistic argument, but a psychological/social one. My point is that people are easily swayed by a strong personality into thinking *anything* is cool, so if I say what I think is cool often enough and strongly enough, that's the definition that will take over. Which was the point of my original, tongue-in-cheek post.

M

13 May 2006
I'll respond to most of this else where but I just want to clarify @ Trixie - In the original post I wasn't suggesting that going to see unsigned bands every night should be regarded as trying desperately to be cool, rather that the people who do that because they love the music are doing one of the things that I consider to be cool but if I, and those who I was with when I had the original converstaion, were to change our curent behaviour and to start doing that it would be in a desperate attempt to reclaim some past, probably non-existent, cool.

The post was meant to be about how much my life has changed since I used to do the things that I considered and still consider cool, and how that probably means I'm growing up and how actually thats alright.

In other news...

Do you know PHP, and have a few years commercial experience under your belt? Do you want to work at one of the world's top Internet companies? Then let me know, because we are hiring like crazy at the moment.

Stephen

12 May 2006
No

Laurie

12 May 2006
You bastard.

Ben

13 May 2006
lol

Clare

15 May 2006
Need an IT recruiter?? ;-)

Laurie

15 May 2006
No, but surely you could throw a few CVs my way?

Clare

17 May 2006
Sure, if you can agree to pay me 20% of the first year salary upon placement ;-)

Of some relevance to the current discussion

Friendliness is the new cool, study finds.

"qualities such as friendliness, egalitarianism, fairness, honesty, passion, even niceness, are considered cool according to the prevailing tastes of today."

So there.*

* NB. this does not actually prove any of my earlier points, I just thought it was interesting.

ian

13 May 2006
Screw you, mofo.

Laurie

13 May 2006
Um...?

The current season of Doctor Who

Just in case it's not been obvious, I've been watching this. It is so far two top-notch episodes, better than last season's average, and one so-far pretty crap two-parter. I'm sorry, but Cybermen are obviously one for the long-time fans because they are not scary. They're not even menacing. They just look dorky, and ripe for parody.

"Al-Qaeda does not believe in transparency"

And, apparently, neither do we. Glad we could find some common ground. Now if we could just come to terms on wanting to blow each other up all the time, maybe we could make some real progress.

No, seriously, did Bush's press secretary really just claim that the reason the US can get away with violating citizens' rights is because al-Qaeda would be strengthened if they found out it was happening? Because, y'know, that's a reason you should stop violating the rights of your citizens. Not a reason you should stop commenting on the fact that you're doing so.

This administration continues to make me nauseous. Is it 2008 yet?

Musication

This will surprise nobody, but I'm really digging the new Snow Patrol album, Eyes Open. Five reasons to like it:

  1. He continues his excellent tradition of singing upbeat-sounding songs about thoroughly depressing things:
    We need to feel breathless with love
    And not collapse under its weight
    I'm gasping for the air to fill
    My lungs with everything I've lost
  2. The lyrics name-check Sufjan Stevens (in fact, the album sounds a bit like a revved-up version of Illinoise)
  3. It features Martha Wainright
  4. It has large groups of people all singing at the same time
  5. It has integrated clapping into at least one song. That's always good for a dance-along.

Also, I agree that Supermassive Black Hole, by Muse, is both very surprising and impressively good -- as the review mentions, they sound a bit like Goldfrapp, and frankly I'm of the opinion that there's a world shortage of Goldfrapp, so the more the better.

Are we going to get another rush of good albums released? Because it's about fucking time.

Trixie

19 May 2006
Argh! You know what im going to say. But i cant think of worse people to involve than those you've named. But also I haven't heard it yet so will reserve most judgement :)

As far as good albums go try

Boy Kill Boy - Civilian
Zutons - Tired of Hanging Around
Pet Shop Boys - Fundamental
The Pipettes - We Are The Pipettes
Nouvelle Vague 2


MANICALLY AVOID (which means you'll probably like it)

The Kooks - Inside/Out

Laurie

19 May 2006
Already loving the Kooks, thanks :-) I revel in my total lack of musical discernment.

ig

19 May 2006
Snow Patrol are truly fucking awful. They are nothing like as good as Sufjan Stevens. Their lyrics are insipid, their tunes plodding and predictable and Gary Nobody is a gurning cunt who can't sing for shit live. And a complete arse by all accounts.

Still, that duet with Martha is excellent, which I put down to her.

You can see them yodel like a crack whore scrambling for her fatal fix on Later With Jools Holland tonight. Martha will also be there, so I guess they're doing THAT song.

Personally I'd recommend Cansei De Ser Sexy (Brazilian Dance Funk Indie), TV on the Radio (barbershop quartet meets Radiohead, brilliant), Howling Bells (standard but good indie), Radio 4 (New York agitprop rock) and well loads of other things. The Organ (Canadian lesbionic smiths/cure pastiche who are brilliant), Mates of State.

One to avoid (i.e. you'll like it) : The Upper Room

Laurie

19 May 2006
Thanks, Official Musical Authority #2!

2 down, 2 to go on this thread...

creeping bobbism

21 May 2006
Re. Supermassive Black Hole,

"Not so much a change in direction as a sudden swerve across all four lanes on the motorway."

Perhaps, although lyrically and in a general 'feel' sense there's a sense of the wacky and fun that Muse has long had (although was most evident on their first album, Showbiz). The new single is bonkers, and all the better for it. I'm hoping the doubters will be shown the error of the ways with a uniquely Muse album of funk.

British Summer rain / Seems to last for ages

I'm looking at the letter from the water company saying how we should be careful, as a drought order may be imminent, and laughing.

Drinking: Hot chocolate
Listening to: The rain, but probably Supermassive black hole again in a second
Reading: A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian (It's a novel! Not even science fiction!)

Mikey

21 May 2006
At th risk of sounding ignorant, is it actually to do with Ukrainians?

Laurie

21 May 2006
Most of the characters are Ukrainians living in Britain, or their children and grandchildren :-) They're all crazy, too, you'd like it.

Afterlife: an update

It's been quite a while since anything major has happened to Afterlife, our faithful RSS aggregator for our little circle. Will's original creation fell over while we were on vacation, and I hastily slapped together a copy over a dialup connection from Trinidad, and since then that's pretty much been it.

Simultaneously, my own aggregator, Planet Seldo (so named because it is running the same Planet RSS aggregation software that powers Afterlife) has been growing a bit too big for its boots.

So recently, when I discovered the really rather nifty CakePHP development framework, and I was casting around for a neat little starter project -- nothing too difficult -- an obvious possibility presented itself. Without further ado, allow me to humbly present seldo.net, an RSS aggregation service, now open for beta testing. It comes preloaded with four sets of feeds:

  • Afterlife, which is pretty much exactly the one you know and love.
  • Chatter, a fast-changing list of gossip and web meme sites -- perfect to kill 5 minutes the next time you're bored
  • News, a currently quite small list of medium-frequency non-mainstream news sites, currently mainly political.
  • People, a bunch of blogs written by interesting people, only about half of whom I've actually met.

So what's different?

  • Well, if all you're reading is Afterlife, through a web browser, almost nothing -- it looks a little nicer (in my opinion, though I am still a bit iffy on my various font choices).
  • "Other news" feature: every channel has a little preview box in the right column, showing you what's going on in the other channels. The idea is to give everybody some non-intrusive motivation to go clicking across to the other channels and use the feeds more thoroughly.
  • From a technical standpoint, it updates in a much friendlier way -- at maximum once every 15 minutes, but on demand, so during low-traffic periods (like when we're sleeping) it doesn't waste everyone's bandwidth.
  • Every channel comes with its own feed in Atom and RSS 2.0 formats, so you can easily plug these meta-feeds into your favourite reader.
  • The back-end is also a lot more robust at reading feeds, so really long links (Bob's perennial problem) will no longer cause Afterlife to ignore your feed.
  • It's doing a lot of other clever stuff under the hood, like feed normalization and stuff, which could be useful to a lot of people, but I've not properly exposed that functionality yet :-)
  • ...uh... the SEO is ass-kickingly good, but that's not really relevant.
  • Basically, it's not revolutionary or groundbreaking in any one. It's just sort of neat, and marginally better than the old version.

Is that it?

Nah, I have a lot of other stuff planned -- this is just the first, get-it-out-the-door release. I've got a lot more planned:

  • Per-user feeds. Don't like the channels I've created? Well, you'll be able to create your own, with urls like www.seldo.net/yourusername/yourfeedname (and www.seldo.net/yourusername will be an overall aggregation of all of your channels). Surprisingly (for me), most of the work to allow you to do this is already done -- I just have to switch it on once I've had a chance to test it properly.
  • Social interaction. Once we've got per-user feeds going, the right-hand column where "Other news" currently lives will get a little more interesting. You'll be able to see feeds that lots of people are subscribing to, and some nifty link-tracking Ajax will let me create a box of "today's most popular links"
  • Lots of customization. This is really the most basic site you can make with CakePHP; it's really suited to doing clever stuff with AJAX, so I intend to get that going as soon as possible -- feel free to suggest almost-impossible things you wish the site could do.

Caveat

Of course, this is just a beta, and I mean that. The links are a bit dodgy, it may occasionally throw up an error message, it may break completely, and it is definitely laughably insecure. If you know anything about CakePHP, two or three good guesses will give you the ability to wipe out the whole application. Don't do that, please.

Oh, and I've left the old Afterlife where it is in case this new one breaks, or doesn't meet your approval. It's not going away anytime soon, but if you prefer the old one, please let me know why this one sucks :-)

Enjoy!

Stephen

22 May 2006
> if you prefer the old one, please let me
> know why this one sucks :-)

Wabson designed the look of the old one
You designed the look of the new one

'Nuff said

Stephen

22 May 2006
And if your response is "well you do better then" ... then I shall be happy to take on your challenge

Laurie

22 May 2006
Go on then -- I can't say I spent more than an hour coming up with the look and feel. The code is nice clean XHTML, so come up with your own CSS and let's see what you can do.

Stephen

22 May 2006
> nice clean XHTML
So you claim

Laurie

22 May 2006
Well, it's not going to validate, obviously, because it's full of other people's markup from their feeds, and seldo.com itself never bothers with XHTML. But it renders in standards-compliance mode on firefox rather than quirks mode, which is nice.

Laurie

22 May 2006
Urgle. It's also running horribly slowly. Will have to think about that...

This Friday

X3 is released. If you think I'm not going to see it on opening day, you are totally nuts. So, comment on this or text me if you want to come along -- it'll be the afternoon evening showing at the Vue in Leicester Square, because if the screen isn't humoungous, what was the point of all that money they blew on the CGI?

Update: See above. I don't know why I said afternoon. I work on Friday afternoons, too.

Update: 8 tickets booked, see you all there! 7.30pm showing, Vue West End.

On Tesco and Globalization

From a recent post on a messageboard I frequent (used with permission):

I hate Tesco with a passion. They got control of the UK food market by building edge of town Superstores in the late 1980’s by bribing Tory councillors. Closed all their in town stores or ran them down to be really so naff that no one wanted to shop there. Pandered to the petrolheads with huge car parks, discounted petrol by adding a bit to grocery products to counterbalance the loss. They then ran Free buses from towns and villages to there new Mega-Extra stores so people were sucked in by the perception of lower prices and greater choice, and stopped using local bakeries and butchers. Then in the late 1990’s they bought the failed village/suburban bakers and butchers and opened Tesco Express/Metro stores which carried such a limited range, you were encouraged to shop for other stuff at the Mega-Extra. At the same time they squeezed money paid to farmers, food producers and imported more goods from overseas where labour is cheaper to exploit and food standards are lower. (Ever wanted to know why Dutch Bacon is cheaper than UK or Irish Produced? look at the way the pigs are clamped into their pens)

At last it seems the government is looking into the practices and pitfalls of out of town shopping. These practices are in no way unique to Tesco, BUT they certaintly are the largest culprits.

This heartfelt rant is pretty typical of the low-grade anti-globalization felt by lots of people. Let's examine it, shall we?

They got control of the UK food market by building edge of town Superstores in the late 1980’s

For this, read: they built large stores in the 80s, in line with global trends towards economies of scale made possible by greater mobility through increased car ownership.

Pandered to the petrolheads with huge car parks

Read: provided parking at these stores.

They then ran Free buses from towns and villages to there new Mega-Extra stores

Read: also catered for those not rich enough to afford a car.

stopped using local bakeries and butchers

Read: made further steps towards economies of scale, making good food more affordable for all.

opened Tesco Express/Metro stores

Read: in line with falling car ownership in inner cities, moved back into smaller shops closer to population centres.

they squeezed money paid to farmers, food producers and imported more goods from overseas where labour is cheaper to exploit

Read: reaped the benefits of globalization, namely even cheaper food and products, not being limited by arbitrary national boundaries.

At last it seems the government is looking into the practices and pitfalls of out of town shopping
Read: is making a populist sop towards Daily Mail readers who complain bitterly about the lack of selection and prices, not noticing that food is much cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. And whom, despite local shops still being very much in evidence, shop at Tesco every Sunday—because it’s cheaper, and they only have to go to one store.

Stephen

24 May 2006
Oh ho ho ho I feel a torrent of abuse not seen since the Bread Maker Scandal is about to pour in!

ed

24 May 2006
I think the difference between this and BreadMachineGate is that Laurie is pretty much right. This rant is totally bizarre. You mean, a corporation moved with its better customers, sought out low cost supplies, and tried to expand its markets in response to social trends? The horror!

It's not like they were pulling a Walmart and locking janitors in the store overnight and whatnot.

Chez

24 May 2006
How did they miss out the part where people were forced at gunpoint to shop at Tesco?

Could it have been by.... choice?!!

Clare

24 May 2006
Am not part of the anti-tesco brigade, but I am concerned by the desire for ever-cheaper food. We are prepared to spend a far lower proprtion of our income these days on food than we were 20 years ago. Of course this is attributal to economies of scale, but I also think we need to look at the quality of the food we buy. Especially meat products - the demand for low prices often means lower quality meat, with God-knows-what being ground up to make sausages/chicken nuggets/whatever else you want to buy. And even with cuts of meat, quite often those animals have been kept in horrendous conditions, transported in even worse conditions, injected with various growth hormones and goodness knows what else. When it comes to meat, I will always buy the more pricey free range/organic choice (sorry Laurie, I know you hate organic food), and I don't mind the extra cost, after all this is what we eat, it keeps us alive. I'll either buy these options at Asda (the northern staple supermarket) or from a local butcher (they do still exist - try it, you might just like it!).And quite often, the meat is more tender/tastier. Same with vegetables - not vegetable cruelty or anything, but I do find that super market fruit and veg is a bit crap. A recent survey has shown that often fruit and veg market stalls can be much cheaper than supermarkets - up to 50%. And it's all much fresher. I'll go organic where I can too, even when it's more money, I think you can tell the difference. Of course, the best option is stocking up from Ali's dad's vegetable garden - organic, fresh, really tasty and free!

Anyway, the point I was trying to make - cheaper food isn't necessarily the best option.

Laurie

24 May 2006
@Clare: "Cheaper" doesn't necessarily mean "the cheapest". It means a fine cut of meat which would have cost you x% of your weekly food budget now costs you (x/2)% -- the bottom of the price range is moving down, but so is the top of the range stuff.

And as long as you buy organic food for the taste and not because it's "better for the environment" (the bit I dispute) you're okay.

Also, ASDA? They're Wal-Mart!

Ade

24 May 2006
reprinting comments suggesting that tesco bribed tory councillors in the 1980's is a tad libellous.

A

Clare

24 May 2006
I know, I know, Asda are evil, but did I mention I live up north?! We have Harvey Nicks, we have Selfridges (2 of them!), we have Urban Outfitters (yay!), but apparently we don't have large Tescos - only the metro in town (apparently it's got the most visitors per square foot of any Tesco metro in the UK). I think there's a big Morrisons not too far away from where we're buying the house, but I'm not sure that's an improvement!

ed

24 May 2006
First off, anyone concerned about All Things Good and Proper should probably avoid Urban Outfitters, as the owner gives tons of money to Senator Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum. Naturally, there are lots of companies that give money to Evil, but Urban Outfitters is extremely avoidable.

Secondly, Laurie, you didn't have any objections to environmental arguments re: organic food until someone else we know spoke about that, so don't try to grasp at some straw of rationality here.

Ben

25 May 2006
@Laurie: I realize this is probably a predictable response from me, but... I was really beginning to think you were coming out of your slightly worrying (to me) right-wing phase. Shame...

Robert

25 May 2006
Re Ben:

I'm not sure it is a right versus left issue, but a middle class foodie-cult versus people on budgets, or with limited time. I do eat some organic food, but largely because there's a convenient grocer on the way home - were there a Tesco Metro I'd go there as I did last year. The point is, if you're shopping for a family, with maybe 40 minutes to do a week's shopping, you'd be crazy to go any but your nearest supermarket. The people who benefit most from the eonomies of scale in food are those who spend the largest proportion of their income on food, i.e. the poor.

And by the way, Laurie's not THAT right-wing, he's just a liberal (in the proper rather than woolly sense of the word)

Ben

25 May 2006
@Robert: I see it as at least something of a right v. left issue. I'm not talking here about organic food, which seems to have snuck in somehow. I'm talking about supermarkets and global growth and transport of food vs. local growers and small shops run by real people. This, I would say, is a situation where free capitalism produces a result worse for everybody except the supermarket owners: locally-grown food starts slighty more expensive, and rapidly becomes more so as the farmers struggle to make a living; both the poorer and the more ignorant (which I am not suggesting go together) end up eating substantially inferior food (in a strictly nutritional sense); everyone, in the long term, suffers the ill effects of flying food all over the world unnecessarily; and while you claim supermarkets help the poor, they also replace a whole lot of people earning a respectable living running small shops (and the farms that supplied them) with people earning minimum wage or less stacking shelves.

Besides, I would say that if there are people who really can't afford to buy decent (not expensive or fancy, just ordinary, honest, decent-quality) food then benefits need to be higher. Food is a basic necessity which any civilization should provide its citizens with.

But then, I'm a socialist, which I understand is out of fashion nowadays :). And yes, I do realise that Laurie is a(n English) liberal. I consider that right-wing: Thatcher was all for free market capitalism and damn the consequences.

Ben

25 May 2006
Hmm, I've probably just invoked some form of Godwin's Law... ;)

Robert

25 May 2006
Ben,

While I agree there are environmental implications of food miles, I'm not sure that this is exclusive to supermarkets. An independent florist, for instance, will have flown-in flowers, or even a local grocers might well have imported food as well as supermarkets. Central distribution also cuts optimises food miles once the food has arrived, but I take the point about food imports.

On a more general level, once the state starts controlling things like food (interestingly a Labour policy back in the early 80s) it has far too much power over our lives - and as many governments have proved bigger is not necessarily better (Home Office, East Germany or European Commission as good and varied examples). But then I'm a liberal Tory...

Chez

25 May 2006
Capitalisms detractors are right in one thing: Tesco is out to make profit. They do it by giving people what they want - and that is cheap food.

Now, you may argue if you choose that what people want is cheap decent food. But that's not the case - YOU are saying they SHOULD have decent food. The food they get from Tesco is decent enough for them. Is it, objectively speaking, good enough nutiritionally? That is a seperate issue. If the customers demand (your standard of) "decent" food, then Tesco's will happily oblige and provide it, and then all the economies of scale will kick in to drive down the price of "decent" food.

If Tesco's, as some claim, do not provide nutritionally "decent" food, that's because their customers aren't demanding it. Tesco would lose custom to shops prepared to offer lower-quality food for less, even if they did try to unilaterally impose better standards.

On the subject of "higher benefits": the fact that such people choose to spend part of their benefits on mobile phones, alcohol, TVs, and other things they need less than decent quality food shows that they value it less than decent quality food. Higher benefits are hardly going to help.

On the subject of time: For all but five hours of the day I'm a nurse to dependant family member. I'm not going to trudge round lots of little disparate shops to buy goods of unknown quality, style or standard, just to satisfy someone else's social guilt.

matthew

30 May 2006
I think supermarkets more often than not provide a good service. But if choice is so important, don't we deserve all the information so we can decide? To make a choice you need to have facts to base that on. So why don't shops display the number of air miles that the product used? Why aren't we told how much the people who made the cheap t-shirts are paid? You might not care, but you don't have to read the labels do you…

But actually, why should we have to go to all that trouble? When I go shopping, I don't have to shop around to make sure I am buying something that won't electrocute me. We have laws to make sure that products are safe - why can't we have laws to make sure that products weren't produced in way that harms the environment, or exploits the poorest people in the world? Are we saying that some people's lives are worth less?

There doesn't seem to be an in-principle problem with regulation - companies are subject to lots of regulations and still make billions of pounds of profit for their shareholders. Most regulations in fact protect companies - limited liability, indemnity against bankruptcy, copyright protection. So what's the problem with regulations that actually help ordinary people?

Chez

30 May 2006
Matthew:

You're quite right to point out that consumers need as much information as possible to make the best choices (the "best" choice is one that most satisfies the needs of the person making the choice). If air miles covered, or the wages paid to the producers matter to you, then you should have that information.

However, when you say "why should we have to go to all that trouble? ... why can't we have laws to make sure that..." What you are really saying is "why can't we have laws to impose *my preferences* on everyone else."

The choices we make are compromises based on value. YOU value the wage paid to the producer. Someone else may not, and I don't see why you should get to impose your values on them.

So long as we have all the information we feel relevant (and the true costs are internalised to the price as much as possible) then suppliers will provide the products we actually demand. No laws are necessary. Unless you're claiming to be able to decide for people what they want and need better than they can for themselves, that is.

"Most regulations protect companies" is palpable nonsense. Prove that assertion. Besides which, you're talking about Companies Law, not Regulations. The more you regulate, the higher costs go for companies, and thus the higher prices go. Cut the regulation, and prices will come down (no really - because if Tesco's don't, Sainsbury will. Therefore Tesco will too.) So yes, there IS an in-principle problem with Regulations.

matthew

30 May 2006
I had to look palpable up, and I misspoke by mixing up regulations and companies law, so I guess I won’t win this discussion though sheer articulacy.

The point I was trying make was that ethical consumerism doesn’t work because people do not have the information they need to make an ethical choice. It is not possible for anyone to get access to the information needed to make an ethical choice if you would like to. And that’s for someone like me, who’s job it is to do so, let alone someone busy, who would prefer not to put money in the pockets of union-busters or poverty-wage payers, but who doesn’t have the time to find out about the background of the 50 items in their basket every week.

Yes regulations can contribute to an increase in cost. Banning the use of children in mines probably did mean a rise in the cost of coal. I am sure that the regulations stopping the use of sharp edges in children’s toys meant a raise in their cost. But isn’t it about what we value? If we’re saying that supermarkets can damage the environment, and their local community, and their own staff, as long as they keep beans at 16p and garden hose at £1.99, that’s your view, and its fair enough. But actually I think people would like the government to set a higher standard.



Chez

31 May 2006
Matthew:

On ethical consumerism: I could make the argument that if our hypothetical shopper doesn't have the time to find out this information, then they do not value it highly enough to make a compromise with their other activities. I suspect that won't cut much ice with you, so let me extend it.

Given this class of people who, when asked, would probably say they would like to take these factors into consideration, but in practice cannot, the answer is not to legislate or regulate. What they lack is information, or rather the time and energy to find it. So give them that information - form a think tank, or research group, or other such organisation funded by people like yourself who would like people to have this information.

Then, those who care the most - i.e. value it the most - can demonstrate this by funding it. Legislation or regulation forces the cost on to ALL consumers - whether they value it or not.

Such information organisations are just as much a part of free market capitalism as the profit making companies are.

On regulation: Yes, it is about what we value. But here's the problem - different people value different things. We all value the protection of children (mines and sharp edges), since they can't look after themselves, but what is a problem to one person is a not a problem or even a benefit to someone else. But supermarkets damaging their local community, and their staff? That's your claim, and not a view I share. (I leave off the environment, which I assume you mean is damaged by the supermarket's logisitcs system, rather than the shop itself, and that's a different discussion.)

Why is the responsibility on the government to "set a higher standard"? Give people the information, and let them make their own decisions about standards. One size simply does not fit all.

Seldo.net version 0.2

I've just released a minor update to seldo.net. All URLs are now absolute and all inline CSS is now stripped, which translated means "Rik's blog now has pictures, and Trixie's images don't hang down into the entry below".

I've also added a Music category, which I'm hoping you all will help me flesh out with some suggestions for good new music blogs.

Per-user stuff is still under development...

Min Seldo

06 October 2008
Just want to know how you got the name for your website from? coz that's the name of my clan!