Categories
COVID-19

Monetizing Disasters the Labour Way

Minister Clayton Bartolo is not having a good week at the office. The tourism sector for which he is responsible is the playing ground for a huge dilemma that pits two different priorities of a nation against each other. On the one hand, the sector depends heavily on the free movement of persons into the island – an economic priority of the first order. No tourists means no money to go round. On the other hand, the current resurge of the pandemic menas that measures need to be taken to protect the citizens of Malta from another dangerous wave.

Health vs Economy should be a no-brainer. In his interviews the Minister repeatedly uses keywords such as “caution” and “responsibility”. Each time he is forced to toe the fine line between encouraging the tourist sector’s economy and reassuring the rest of the nation that all steps are taken in a way not to imperil the health of the residents of the island. As we watch the story unfold it is not always so straightforward. The rush to reopen the tourist sector, especialy the language schools, has had some negative results that may be even more painful in the long-term.

Take for example the case of the stranded and quarantined students. Malta’s language school sector has taken a definitive negative blow in Italy with the coverage of the quarantine conditions that the Italian students have been obliged to live in. Have a look at the title of this article on La Stampa which I am sure disgraced former PM Joseph Muscat would love to read:

Coronavirus, Dubai non è come Malta. Lo studente bloccato: “Assistiti da medici e infermieri. Per i miei 18 anni una torta dal ministero della Salute”

(La Stampa)

Lovely no? Malta is now the reference point on the negative end of the scale. Insofar as dealing with the pandemic is concerned, we have moved from top of the class in Europe to being the bad example that no one wishes to emulate. Incidentally, you would have thought that with all the talk the tourism sector has going about its importance they would have mobilized their resources better in order to avoid this kind of situation.

Labour’s rush to capitalise on the UK’s green-lighting of Malta was symptomatic on the eagerness to monetize as quickly as possible and make up for lost time. Disguised in terms of “assisting recovery” of affected sectors, such decisions are clearly a result of a twisted outlook that is not new in Labour’s vocabulary. This outlook is based on an unprincipled money-based approach to monetize on any disastrous situation.

Back in 2011 a Joseph Muscat in opposition would speak of the advantages that would accrue to Malta thanks to the instability in North Africa following the Arab Spring. At the time I had commented:

” … there is something wrong when a progressive politician suggests taking advantage of the Arab Spring to boost national tourism. It gets worse when the same politician lauds Italy’s heavy-handed nationalism on the matter of immigration.”

Pulse, J’accuse on the Malta Independent on Sunday

The Labour party approach to international disasters or events is as unprincipled as it is ruthless. Again back in 2011 George Vella (now President, then aspirant foreign minister) saw the troubles in Libya as a possible boon for Malta since they could end up solving the immigration problem once, as George Vella put it, Libya became a Dubai in the Mediterranean attracting investment (see Labour Loves Libya on J’accuse in August 2011). Now if you set aside the inconsistencies between Muscat’s hopes of attracting that investment rerouted away from a troubled North Africa and Vella’s hope that the investment (and the immigrants) goes to Libya instead you find the bottom line: Malta gaining economically on the back of other disasters.

The problem with the pandemic is that turning Malta into an economic hyena also risks damaging irreparably our reputation in particular sectors while also aggravating the health situation on the island. As the saying goes: Prosit Minestri.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Our missionary position

missionary_akkuzaThis is a guest post sent in by a J’accuse reader. 

While everyone this side of the Great Wall is falling over themselves to figure out how much of our taxes are being used to remunerate “our” emissary in the Far East, one simple fact from the horse’s mouth seems to have been missed.

I, for one, could not care less if the salary Hon. Mizzi’s wife is supposedly on is €3,000, €13,000 or €130,000 per month if it means the overall economic boost to our nation’s coffers results in a net gain from this promotional mission. However, what is most striking, is that for all the hard work she is meant to have done in the past year, all she has to show for it is interest from a ‘top digital company’ to come to Malta and set up a ‘free trade zone centre’.

Sai Mizzi’s quote to Times of Malta reporter Ariadne Massa:

“This company is looking to set up a showcase for all Chinese products in Malta so that European countries will not need to travel to China to see their goods but they can just go to Malta, which is on their doorstep”

That sounds like top work to me, but only if your remit was to bring China and Chinese products to the EU. Does Ms Mizzi not know which side of her bread is being buttered? Apart from saving a little airfare for our EU brethren I fail to identify any benefit that this may bring to our economy. Even the trade zone centre is “free”!

A Nonny Moose

Categories
Mediawatch

More on Thrift

One of the books I’m reading deals with the issue that we were talking about on this blog yesterday (“Thrifty with facts”). “The Price of Everything” by Eduardo Porter is an interesting study into the “true cost of living” and attempts to give an interesting perspective on otherwise mundane facts. My original post had been triggered by the fact that Maltastar deemed it fit to compare average wages in Luxembourg and Malta ostensibly because the evident gap would mean that the Maltese and only the Maltese have it worse off all round.

One of Porter’s chapters deals with how firms selling goods operate on the market in such a manner as to obviate the possibilities of the consumer to purchase comparatively. In other words, firms will go through great lengths to ensure that the consumer is not in a position to compare the price of their products with those of their competitors. We see this when a price is camouflaged under a pile of add-ons, bonuses, offers etc. Another of Porter’s interesting observations is that different brackets of the population have different shopping habits for different reasons. High wage earners give less value to the time spent comparing prices and tend to shop off the cuff while low wage earners are prepared to invest time in order to get the bargain.

Studies (I know that vague term is ugly but give it a chance) have shown that the same product might sell for very different prices depending on the customer involved. I do not need to believe some obscure study. SATURN, an electronics goods operating in Luxembourg has proven to be quite a good example of this practice  over the past few months. I have noticed that anything from headphones to in-car hands-free sets can vary in price depending on whether you opt to shop at Saturn in the city-centre (Gare area) or whether you drive to Esch-Belval (20 minutes highway).

It’s not just electronic goods either. Malta has now got Lidl as a household name. Luxembourg too has its different tiers – from ALDI (think lidl but cheaper – yes, cheaper) to Delhaize via Cora, Cactus and Auchan (that’s Pavi in Malta) you would have to command a panoply of comparative programs in order to get your really thrifty shopping list.

Am I making a point here? Well yes. It might be worth reflecting that when we speak of Malta’s consumers we are not talking of one homogenous block. Times may have changed from when Mintoff’s budget was eagerly awaited in order to know the going rate for the next year for a can of sardines but that does not mean that consumers are not still a varied bunch that are daily tackling the traps and offers of a myriad of shopping establishments.

One instant in the movie the Iron Lady struck me (or was it “The Road to Finchley”). Thatcher knew the price of butter in the stores (she was after all a grocer’s daughter) but her fellow politicians did not. I wonder whether some intrepid reporter could cold question Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat and find out whether they know the going rate for a carton of milk or butter (even if it’s the fake kind). Before our politicians can fan the flames of discontent with regard to the cost of living they would do well to show a little more understanding of the situation.

Is there open competition in Malta? Are your Pavi’s and Arkadia’s and Smart’s providing a range of prices that might be beneficial to the consumer? That too must be taken into account. Before we look outside our shores and focus on how much money is ending up in other people’s pockets it would be interesting to know who is spending what and where with the money that ends up in our own.

Feedback is welcome. Meanwhile here is an excerpt from the Porter book.

According to a study of Denver shoppers families that make more than 70,000 dollars a year pay 5 per cent more for the same set of goods than families making less than 30,000 dollars. Singles without children pay 10 per cent less than families with five members or more. Families headed by people in their early forties pay up to 8 per cent more than those in their early twenties or late sixties. Retirees are much more careful shoppers than middle-aged people. They search dutifully for the best deal and end up paying nearly the same amount for the same product. People in middle-age, by contrast, buy more carelessly. The prices they pay are all over the map.

Categories
iTech

The Hard Drive

While shopping for goods to fill the Christmas stockings you might have gone to some IT product store and had a good look at the prices for hardware goods. If you were shocked at the sudden hike in price for external drives for your PC/Mac or in the price for certain laptops you might be glad to know there is a reason for that. As L’Essentiel reports, we are witnessing the butterfly effect from the floods in Thailand. Companies producing hard drives and laptops have had their production practically halted and the slowdown has caused a lower supply: enter the magic of market forces.

This kind of news is an eye opener for those among us who tend to think that prices of goods and the operation of the market is entirely dependent on some paper-pushing Ministers’ decision. The same applies for those among us who believe that markets and even national economies can ever operate again in isolation.

And if a series of floods in Thailand can effect the purchasing habits in a medium-sized French town I am baffled at how some commentators can still shout hurray at David Cameron’s choice of isolating Britain from the decisions that will be taken from now on to consolidate the European Union’s (and it’s Single Market) position economically and on the world stage.

Cameron thinks he drove a hard deal. A hard drive? Sure, but with expensive consequences.

Categories
Jasmine

Labour Loves Libya

George Vella, Malta’s possible future Foreign Minister has drawn his own conclusion about the best possible outcome that could result from the toppling of Gaddhafi. The Times online title says it all: “Libya can boom and ‘absorb’ immigrants“. Nothing wrong there really is there? I mean surely we cannot criticize George for hoping that Libya gets on its own two feet economically and thus act as a magnet to all potential North African emigrants. Let’s see how George put it (our highlights).

Libya could become an investment hub, “the Dubai of the Mediterranean”, and it could also capitalise on its white sandy beaches and crystal-clear waters to become a front-runner in the tourism industry, he said. Throwing into the mix its oil riches and small population density, if Libya opened to free trade it was bound to begin “absorbing” immigrants rather than remain a stepping stone into Europe, Dr Vella argued.

Right. I guess in the world of Realpolitik this is definitely much nicer and presentable than a plan to round up immigrants and send them back into the welcoming arms of deranged Colonel Gaddhafi (Gieh ir-Repubblika et al). When we remember Labour’s last pronouncement with regards to the Arab Spring  though, it tends to bring out an unpleasant truth about the party that is suddenly become (at least according to some ) the bastion of Civil Liberties. Do we not remember Joseph Muscat’s gaffe that the troubles in North Africa might bring about an economic boost to Malta’s ailing tourism industry?

Joseph was busy holding an “Iftar” with the Muslim community so he might have missed George’s latest solution to Malta’s immigration woes. Pity. It would be good to know whether this reflects general Labour thinking or whether it is just a frijvowt issue – where opinions are like genitals… to each his own.  Here is what Joseph said at the Iftar…

Dr Muscat said he expected that the PL would be criticised  for its initiative to hold this ceremony, but this strengthened the party as an organisation which wanted to bring down barriers and believed in a society which respected everyone.

Respected everyone? Sure. So long as the dregs of the earth and the hapless immigrants find some other economy to drain. Who knows.. if Libya booms and absorbs well enough there might be no one to attend PL’s Iftar come a few years time… I wonder… would that be a bonus or a minus? Don’t ask me.

Ask George.

Or Joseph.

 

***

Addendum: other interesting George Vella observations:

  • not too in favour of NATO (old habits die hard)
  • Western countries had always been motivated by their own interests, including personal political interests and the economic interests of their countries. Malta, throughout history, also had to look after its interests, he said (Malta. L-ewwel u qabel kollox)
  • “Malta did not choose its neighbour. Love or hate Gaddafi, we had to do business with him. No one ever agreed with his politics. We are democrats not dictators,” he said. All administrations had to remain close to the Gaddafi regime. (realpolitik revisited)