farmdoc's blog post number 539

The capitalism paradigm intrigues me [1, 2]. Whilst I see the imputed logic of free market competition, I’m blind to how lots of competition’s rational at this time on this planet. For almost all products, our supermarket shelves boast not one or two, but several choices. That’s overkill. Inefficient and wasteful. As is just about everything society concocts for our alleged benefit. Too much. Too much. Too much. Research reveals the clear benefits of a simpler life. But society – whatever and whoever that is – exerts massive pressures on us that make simplification difficult, and complexification all but irresistible. And so it is too with Days, Weeks, Months and Years. Of the commemorative and promotional type. Aimed at raising consciousness, changing attitudes, improving behaviour. Every day, week, month and year’s a Day, Week, Month and Year of Something. They even overlap and clash. There are too many of them. Way too many. Probably this is just another instance of free market competition. But over a period of years, the primary determinant of survival in the calendar of commemoratives may not be worthiness. Did you know Mental Health Week [3, 4, 5, 6] ended yesterday? Mental health’s way up there among worthy causes. But Mental Health Week gained nary a skerrick of media attention. Why? The media – and so the public – is blasé about commemoratives. Too many. Too many. Too many. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 520

It’s about 31 years since I completed my PhD thesis. Titled Fractured Neck of Femur - An Operational Study, it’s a presentation of my research which used fractured neck of femur as an indicator of how the health service was performing. That is, as a tracer condition. According to this concept, I view supermarkets as a tracer for our society at large. And ‘buy and large’ (pun intended) it’s not a pretty picture. I’ve written here of some of tricks and ploys supermarkets use to entice people to buy what they don’t need. Buying what isn’t needed, is the ethos and rationale of the materialism/capitalism paradigm. Which is why the supermarket is such a superb tracer for society. Then in yesterday’s Age I read, and was appalled by, this article. Screens and GPS devices on shopping trolleys! Yikes! It’ll be expensive to implement. But if, as US trials suggest, the sales in participating stores rose by 10% and sales of featured products rose by 30-40%, the initial outlay will be recouped soon enough. I swear that if this gear’s in a supermarket where I shop, if I don’t use my indelible marker pen to good effect, I won’t look at the screen on my trolley. And if that’s the way society in general is headed, then I despair. Screw MediaCart. Whatever will they think of next? Don’t answer that – it’s a rhetorical question.

farmdoc's blog post number 467

I’ve previously written of two principles I’ve invented (I think): the Bus Stop Principle and the Bucket Principle. Today’s post’s about another one. I haven’t finalised its name yet. I’m provisionally calling it the Spurlock Principle – after Morgan Spurlock (pictured) who wrote, directed and starred in the 2004 Academy Award nominated documentary Super Size Me. In a 30-day period (in February-March 2003), Spurlock ate only McDonalds food. But he also ‘super-sized’ his meal whenever he was asked to. Which is the essence of my theory – the Spurlock Principle – that if you buy a bigger container of something, you’re likely to use its contents faster than a smaller container’s. I haven’t tested this theory – at all let alone rigorously. And I probably won’t. Sweetheart Vivienne disagrees with it. I accept that Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. And I know that when Sweetheart Vivienne’s and my opinions on something differ, mostly she’s right. But to me it’s so logical. Basic human nature. Like the tendency to drive less economically if your tank’s full of fuel, than if it’s near empty. I’ve previously mentioned supermarket unit pricing. Obviously the larger the container, the lower the unit price. But buying a larger quantity may be false economy if it results in faster use. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 410

Nowadays Sweetheart Vivienne and I don’t argue much. But a perpetual source of friction is that when I shop in the supermarket I write down the price of each item I buy, and after the checkout I compare the docket prices with my shopping list prices. I often find differences. But I only report those when I’m overcharged. Which happens much more frequently than undercharging. Whereas random chance suggests overcharging and undercharging should happen equally. So the die’s loaded in the supermarket’s favour. No surprise there. And the same with Telstra. The billing errors I find are almost all in its favour – including a recent one of a few hundred dollars. Last Monday Telstra announced it’s ending the pip tones that for the last 40 years have been heard at the start of all long distance calls. It’s labelled its phase-out part of the transformation process that’s turning Telstra into ‘a world leading media communications company’. And it said ‘the removal of STD pip tones will give fixed line users a consistent experience’. What horse shit. It sounds like corporate types are incapable of honesty when spin’s an option. The upshot, of course, is that no more pip tones encourages people to talk for longer without remembering they’re on a long distance call. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 364

Last October I wrote of my supermarket aversion. Six months later, it’s still there. I usually shop at Woolworths in Deloraine weekly, and approaching the store I always feel trepidation. A sense of impending tussle – adversarial sparring – with a sophisticated and pervasive marketing monster. Them against me. Of course I’m aware of some of the tricks – aka marketing strategies – used by supermarkets to maximise impulsive/unplanned purchases of high profit-margin items: the type and tempo of background music, placing target items at eye-level (for adults or children), eye-catching packaging, signage (increasingly glued flat to the floor), price tags looking like prices are reduced when in fact they’re not, magazines and confectionery displays near the checkout. And others. Many others. All aiming to separate the suckers from their dollars. Recently I read here of another trick/strategy: reducing package size and/or product size without reducing price. I think it’s reprehensible. But I’ve no doubt the supermarkets would say it’s caveat emptor (i.e. let the buyer beware); and that the unit pricing they’re introducing should inform customers. But the unit pricing tags are so tiny it’s hard to read. And I don’t know who’d jot down unit prices to compare week-in-week-out. Logic dictates that treating customers with patronising contempt should backfire on the supermarkets. But I’m not holding my breath on it.

farmdoc's blog post number 183

Last month a Hobart lawyer friend told me of his 7-minute supermarket rule, i.e. his maximum supermarket shopping time per week is seven minutes. Either my self-discipline’s less stringent or I walk slower, because my weekly supermarket shopping always exceeds seven minutes. Always. This aside, I dislike all shopping, which I therefore do as infrequently and briefly as possible. For me it’s non retail therapy. Also I’m averse to entering a shop (or stall) where I’m the only potential customer. I worry about how to leave without buying anything. Like George W, I lack exit strategies. I know that’s stupid, but it’s how I feel. I’ve previously mentioned my belief that people either can or can’t sell. I’m unequivocally in the latter group. Always have been, always will be. So with trepidation I volunteered to help darling grandson Zephyr with his street stall (pictured) last Sunday. But all was okay because he wanted to do all the selling. Turned out I sat with him for 30 minutes without a single customer. But he confidently yelled ‘Garage sale here’ to passing cars. I was relieved, literally and figuratively, when it came time to travel back to Melbourne. My departure brought him luck; he ended the day selling three items for a total of $1.50. In the former group is our Zeph. I envy him that.

farmdoc's blog post number 139

Last Monday night when Sweetheart Vivienne and I were watching a DVD, a dreaded blue-screen crash occurred. Not knowing whether or not the DVD caused the crash, we decided not to run that DVD again. So the next night we streamed from the internet last Monday’s episode of Four Corners. To quote the ABC’s programme blurb, ‘The Price We Pay’ shows the results of Four Corners’ investigation into how the astonishing market dominance of Woolworth’s and Coles supermarkets affects consumers, suppliers and the nation’s food bowl. This supermarket duopoly may benefit consumers in the short-term, but because it’s terrible for suppliers and therefore Australia’s food bowl, consumers will suffer from it too in the medium-term and beyond. And a recent ACC inquiry was a rubber stamp for the status quo, in the blind and obedient interest of big business and ideologically moronic competition policy. All very depressing, really. At least darling Meg and PJ do the intelligent thing by avoiding supermarkets altogether. Good for them. Recently Meg sent me the latest blog post – titled ‘Strange Fruit’ – from George Monbiot. Monbiot is a self-confessed fructivist who knows that supermarket fruit is selected for how well it travels, and it’s picked before it’s ripe. Ergo, he concludes, the only way to get wonderful tasting fruit is to grow it yourself. Last Wednesday PJ planted fruit trees. How delicious!