Archive for 2 February 2017

Fluffier toilet paper, Trump nonsense and stillborn TPP

2 February 2017

(Reprinted from The Edge – Options pullout, 30 January 2017 issue)

Is it my imagination or am I buying less product for the same money these days? I bought a box of cereal and I am sure it’s smaller than it once was. Have I gone mad?
Disgruntled consumer

There’s something going on that I don’t like. That’s right, I want to talk to you about toilet paper. When it comes to brand loyalty, I am the customer that all corporations want. If I choose a brand, then I will stick with it forever. For instance, I still have my MegaTV aerial connected to my TV and every day I switch it on hoping that it and Metrovision will suddenly reappear. Once you’ve got me, you have me for life. I mean, I’m still playing Pokemon Go. But my favoured brand of toilet paper is doing something I don’t like and it’s something I’ve been noticing quite a lot recently.

Without changing its price, the amount of actual paper has been reduced. The paper has become much thinner and the roll much fluffier so that now, the rolls are more air than paper. Without changing its price, the manufacturer has actually increased the price by subtly reducing the product by, say, 10%. This sort of thing has probably been going on for a long time and I’ve only just woken up to it. Prices are raised subtly by reducing the amount of actual product, but maintaining the same size of packaging, especially on products that we don’t really look at, like breakfast cereals and toilet paper.

Now I hear what you’re saying. You’re saying, “Why don’t you complain to the manufacturer? Why the hell are you telling us this rubbish?” And I say, that’s a very good point. I should complain to the manufacturer. But what would that achieve? The corporation will just ignore this loyal customer. It makes me so angry that it’s enough to make me vote for Trump or Brexit. That’ll make my toilet paper great again. At least, that’s why I think people voted for Trump or Brexit because they are meant to magically solve everything.

Oh dear, it’s President Trump. My question is, do you know of a hole I can live in for the next four years?
Trumped

I have some friends who are in deepest Myanmar without phone or internet connections and I envy them at the moment because they were spared the sight of Trump becoming the new US president. I don’t understand betting odds, but bookmakers seem to think it’s highly likely that he will be impeached within the first six months. This is probably wishful thinking and instead I’m hunkering down for four years of Trump nonsense, if the world lasts that long.

One of the first things he did was lie about the size of the crowd attending his inauguration. He said it was “Yuuge” when actually it was smaller than the crowd that attended Obama’s. A spokesman later clarified that it wasn’t a lie but “alternative facts”, thereby instantly setting the tone for Trump’s presidency. So it’s nothing but cat videos for me for the next four years while I attempt to ignore Trump.

Another first thing he did was to cancel America’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Much as I admire Obama, I never understood why he or any politician wanted to pursue this potentially enormous trade pact. It might have made sound economic sense but it didn’t make political sense. The TPP’s economic impact might have led to more jobs in Asia, cheaper products in America and greater opportunities for US corporations overseas. Maybe it would have created greater wealth, but it flew in the face of the basic premise that all politics is local. Voters rarely care about the source of their cheaper products and instead think that a new job over there means one less job over here.

Obama started working on the TPP during his second and final term in office, and so it would never have become an election issue for him, but it hurt Hillary Clinton and potentially all the Asian politicians running for re-election. Unless, say, you really, really, really wanted to make Obama happy. Its potential benefits for the entire region would have been too subtle while its downsides would have been obvious and easily attacked by understandably fearful voters.

The EU has been an economic, cultural and political success, and yet even this transnational trade pact is being rejected by voters.

I was in South Wales before the Brexit vote. It’s an area that was once a coal and steel heartland of global importance, but is now economically depressed. And yet there have been regeneration projects in Swansea because it has received a lot of EU money and now its waterfront is very pretty, which helps cover up the fact that the shops sell clothes that are only affordable because they’re all made in China. There are lots of thrift shops and any other consumer choice is simply a spillover from the money-making machine that is London.

But despite the EU-sponsored waterfronts and museums, South Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. They have voiced their rejection of the EU and the City of London, which are two major sources of their money. Why? Pride, I guess.

Obama promoted a message of hope. But what use is hope for voters who perhaps justifiably see themselves as being without any hope? Hope demands a leap of faith that anything is possible despite all indications to the contrary, and such was the hope for the TPP. Maybe it would have been the answer to all dreams, but voters only see what is right in front of them and if the voter doesn’t have a job, then they will assume that somebody else has it instead.

The TPP might have made sound economic and indeed geo-political sense by acting as a counterweight to the rising power of China, but it was an almost impossible proposition to sell because voters would have taken its benefits for granted but bemoaned its downsides. By cancelling it, Trump has probably given Asia to China but he killed a plan that had few friends. And what friends it did have are now really, really, really good friends with China.

Reprinted with the kind permission of