"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 09/08/2017 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 7:34 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.

They have retained the Guild approach to business far longer than we
have.

And as Terry Pratchett noted, if you're going to have crime, it may as
well be organised crime.

Seems to work remarkably well in Japan. The Yakuza were first on the scene
assisting after some of the major earthquakes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan...ts-2011-3?IR=T

In the early stages they were better organised than the "authorities" who
spent way too long in meetings reaching a consensus on what to do!

Guild of Thieves, anyone? Judging by what I read today about Junker's
recent expenses binge, the EU is certainly that.

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

Bet they ultimately see the benefit instead.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a
sensible decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay
the price.

The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. That alone is reason enough for
leaving.

Please give an example of your ideal democracy.

Almost all of them are a hell of a lot more democratic than the EU,
which doesn’t even have a parliament that can initiate or revoke
legislation.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a
sensible decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately
pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

So everyone in London is young?

Nope, just recent immigrants like you.

Same with Scotland?

Just stupid, like you.

My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.

Guess again.

Hoping any (promised) change would be better than none.

And it will be, you watch.

Sadly for them, I'd say they've shot themselves in the foot.

More fool you, they havent.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.

I'd say percieved depravation which is slightly differnt.

There are some incredibly poor areas of the UK.

And they mostly didn’t bother to vote in that referendum.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

Thats life. Leaves some shiny bum deciding what is allowed for dead.

I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

**** that. The shinybums would have banned supermarkets.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid
too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.


Quite. Have a look at a large supermarket chain 'local' after the
competition has gone. No more offers

That’s bull****. Our national supermarket chains all
have the same offers, and keep having them forever.

We've just had a new Aldi show up and they
wont be stopping with their offers, you watch.

- and usually no more own economy brand.
Wouldn't surprise me if branded goods were more
expensive than in one of their larger stores, either.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Lidaldi alone.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 15:24:52 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.

I'd say percieved depravation which is slightly differnt.

There are some incredibly poor areas of the UK.

and for some reason this is where the migrnats are dumped because it's cheap and the people struggling to make ends meet in those areas see the immigrants come and get houses some might be economic migrants who can afford the houses, others might be refugees and put up in B&Bs or hotels, and those that havwe coem from say poland and have to live in crap housing in cramp positions see people with dark skins and assume few if any are working and just thieve or work illegally which lowers most peolpes chance of gettign reasonaly paid work.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 16:14:09 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

It'll be the yoof who will benefit. They'll be in a country with low
youth unemployment, compared to the EU with its *high* youth
unemployment. Which is why Our Vince was talking the usual LibDem cock.

There are already plenty dead end jobs in the UK for 'yoof'. Who don't
want them. Hence all the immigrants hard at work.

But in teh UK we had the idea that everyone should be able to afford the basics in order to live, so those without jobs could at least eat so they were given money to live on. If they get any job this money is taken away, which is why so many are working and claiming because they can't earn enough to live because there;s too much compitiotion for low paid jobs such as car cleaning.
This is why some of the poorest countries in teh world have the richest elite, because they use the large number of poor people needing jobs to lower the pay of those jobs.
Look at the sports direct model even universities have gotten the bug, pay studets to lecture to other studets then you don't have to pay lecture wages.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 18:52:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.


Quite. Have a look at a large supermarket chain 'local' after the
competition has gone. No more offers - and usually no more own economy
brand. Wouldn't surprise me if branded goods were more expensive than in
one of their larger stores, either.

The local are usualy more expensive for most stuff, they use the same excuse that petrol, stations use for charging more for stuff.

On 09-Aug-17 7:15 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Now you have to define "small business", "benefit", "a bit" and
"protectionism" and you've just spent £200M on a Government department
to run it all, lobbyists for businesses that "want in", lawyers for
businesses that were refused entry to the scheme and on and on and on.

There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I
was probably thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK
businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees and have an annual
turnover of under £2 million.

As for befitting from a small bit of protectionism, I had in mind
something similar to the legislation that stopped the proliferation of
petrol stations in the 1960s. Any business above a certain size (which
could be defined by any combination of number of employees, turnover or
number of outlets) and that operates from any property with one of the A
Use Classes is banned from opening a new business within a certain
distance (say 250 metres) of any similar business.

Away with it all! It always amuses me when people complain that the little
shop they never went in has gone and been replaced by a Tesco Metro.

I am talking about shops that I used regularly that have been replaced
by mediocre alternatives - the pizza take-away run by another Colin that
was put out of business when a Dominoes opened next door, the bakery
with very good line in speciality breads that went not long after a
Greggs opened a few doors away and the superior fish and chip shop
displaced by Harry Ramsden's.

I also miss the two traditional ironmongers where the staff knew exactly
what I wanted, no matter how obscure, and could get it for me within a
day on the rare occasion they didn't have it in stock. Instead we have
had a succession of DIY sheds, which have, in turn, been replaced by a
Wickes, which somehow manages never to have what want.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09-Aug-17 7:15 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid
too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Now you have to define "small business", "benefit", "a bit" and
"protectionism" and you've just spent £200M on a Government department
to run it all, lobbyists for businesses that "want in", lawyers for
businesses that were refused entry to the scheme and on and on and on.

There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees

Our new Aldi only has 10

and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I was probably
thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses that employ
fewer than 10 employees

So our new Aldi would be fine.

and have an annual turnover of under £2 million.

As for befitting from a small bit of protectionism, I had in mind
something similar to the legislation that stopped the proliferation of
petrol stations in the 1960s. Any business above a certain size

Trouble is it would have stopped supermarkets completely.

And Amazon in spades. No thanks.

(which could be defined by any combination of number of employees,
turnover or number of outlets) and that operates from any property with
one of the A Use Classes is banned from opening a new business within a
certain distance (say 250 metres) of any similar business.

No reason why two chemist shops or banks next door to each other isnt
sensible.

Away with it all! It always amuses me when people complain that the
little
shop they never went in has gone and been replaced by a Tesco Metro.

I am talking about shops that I used regularly that have been replaced by
mediocre alternatives - the pizza take-away run by another Colin that was
put out of business when a Dominoes opened next door, the bakery with very
good line in speciality breads that went not long after a Greggs opened a
few doors away and the superior fish and chip shop displaced by Harry
Ramsden's.

There is no viable alternative. Shiny bums
deciding on what is acceptable doesnt work.

I also miss the two traditional ironmongers where the staff knew exactly
what I wanted, no matter how obscure, and could get it for me within a day
on the rare occasion they didn't have it in stock. Instead we have had a
succession of DIY sheds, which have, in turn, been replaced by a Wickes,
which somehow manages never to have what want.

Thats life, there is no viable alternative.

On 10-Aug-17 5:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
....
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees

Our new Aldi only has 10

and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I was probably
thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses that
employ fewer than 10 employees

So our new Aldi would be fine....

I am sure you really understand that the numbers refer to the company,
not one branch of it, and are simply being stupid on purpose.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 10-Aug-17 5:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
.....

As for befitting from a small bit of protectionism, I had in mind
something similar to the legislation that stopped the proliferation of
petrol stations in the 1960s. Any business above a certain size

Trouble is it would have stopped supermarkets completely.

I only know of two cases where two supermarkets opened within easy
walking distance of each other. In one case, the smaller failed. In the
other, one moved several miles away.

And Amazon in spades. No thanks.

What similar enterprise is Amazon next door to?

(which could be defined by any combination of number of employees,
turnover or number of outlets) and that operates from any property
with one of the A Use Classes is banned from opening a new business
within a certain distance (say 250 metres) of any similar business.

No reason why two chemist shops or banks next door to each other isnt
sensible.....

The regulation would not stop a chemists opening next door to another
chemists, provided that the new one was a small independent chemist who
thought that a good business model. There could even be an exemption for
the situation where the new and the existing businesses are both large,
which would allow banks to open next to each other, although they are
far more likely to be closing branches than opening new ones.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sunday, 6 August 2017 08:28:30 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411

A lot more eggs than previously revealed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40889414

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 5:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees

Our new Aldi only has 10

and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I was probably
thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses that employ
fewer than 10 employees

So our new Aldi would be fine....

I am sure you really understand that the numbers refer to the company, not
one branch of it,

If there was such a stupid rule, each store would be an independent
operation that got its stock from a common source.

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote

As for befitting from a small bit of protectionism, I had in mind
something similar to the legislation that stopped the proliferation of
petrol stations in the 1960s. Any business above a certain size

Trouble is it would have stopped supermarkets completely.

I only know of two cases where two supermarkets opened within easy walking
distance of each other. In one case, the smaller failed. In the other, one
moved several miles away.

We have always had a supermarket of each of the two main
national supermarket chains quite literally next to each other
and they aint going nowhere and are both doing fine.

We aint unique either, there was one chain specific
thread on facebook where some said that they preferred
the trolleys from one chain, so grab one of the trolleys
the trolleys they prefer and use it in supermarket they
prefer, quite a bit of the time a different one to the
one that has the trolleys they prefer.

And we have had the two major national supermarket
chains attempt to monster the mall owners they have
\their supermarkets in to not allow aldi to have a
supermarket in that mall and they have been ****ed
over very comprehensively indeed by our main
competition regulator for trying to pull that stunt.

And Amazon in spades. No thanks.

What similar enterprise is Amazon next door to?

That bit of yours wasnt about the next door to.

(which could be defined by any combination of number of employees,
turnover or number of outlets) and that operates from any property with
one of the A Use Classes is banned from opening a new business within a
certain distance (say 250 metres) of any similar business.

No reason why two chemist shops or banks next door to each other isnt
sensible.....

The regulation would not stop a chemists opening next door to another
chemists, provided that the new one was a small independent chemist who
thought that a good business model.

No reason why two national chains couldnt think that too
and that would be quite convenient for those who choose
to shop around. Why should those who choose to shop
around have to hike for miles or move their car between
the carparks to do that ? There's a reason for the big malls
and mad to insist that none of them can have more than
one branch of a national chain in any particular area of
commerce in each one.

There could even be an exemption for the situation where the new and the
existing businesses are both large, which would allow banks to open next
to each other, although they are far more likely to be closing branches
than opening new ones.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 09-Aug-17 7:15 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid
too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Now you have to define "small business", "benefit", "a bit" and
"protectionism" and you've just spent £200M on a Government department
to run it all, lobbyists for businesses that "want in", lawyers for
businesses that were refused entry to the scheme and on and on and on.

There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I
was probably thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses
that employ fewer than 10 employees and have an annual turnover of under
£2 million.

As for befitting from a small bit of protectionism, I had in mind
something similar to the legislation that stopped the proliferation of
petrol stations in the 1960s. Any business above a certain size (which
could be defined by any combination of number of employees, turnover or
number of outlets) and that operates from any property with one of the A
Use Classes is banned from opening a new business within a certain
distance (say 250 metres) of any similar business.

Away with it all! It always amuses me when people complain that the
little
shop they never went in has gone and been replaced by a Tesco Metro.

I am talking about shops that I used regularly that have been replaced by
mediocre alternatives - the pizza take-away run by another Colin that was
put out of business when a Dominoes opened next door, the bakery with very
good line in speciality breads that went not long after a Greggs opened a
few doors away

We still have plenty of small independent bakerys and I'm not
convinced that opening next door is what matters with high
street shops where most will go to the one they prefer anyway.

and the superior fish and chip shop displaced by Harry Ramsden's.

Yes, plenty of the independent operators have gone broke with
the rise of the big national operations with fast food, but there
are still plenty of independent operations around too.

With restaurants in spades.

And the last thing we need is some damned shinybum deciding
who can open a new operation and where anyway.

And what you lot call high streets are dying in the arse anyway.

I also miss the two traditional ironmongers where the staff knew exactly
what I wanted, no matter how obscure, and could get it for me within a day
on the rare occasion they didn't have it in stock. Instead we have had a
succession of DIY sheds, which have, in turn, been replaced by a Wickes,
which somehow manages never to have what want.

We've still got independent operations, and the big national chains.

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

I only know of two cases where two supermarkets opened within easy
walking distance of each other. In one case, the smaller failed. In the
other, one moved several miles away.

Even more - round this part of London, Tesco and Sainsbury seem to have
divided things up. Several decent sized Sainsbury - but a much longer way
to get a large Tesco. Same with Lidl and Aldi - lots of Lidl, but a long
way for a large Aldi.

'Local' versions are more evenly spread.

--
*WHOSE CRUEL IDEA WAS IT FOR THE WORD 'LISP' TO HAVE 'S' IN IT?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10-Aug-17 8:29 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-10, Nightjar wrote:
....
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I
was probably thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK
businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees and have an annual
turnover of under £2 million.

See, there's already an argument over what constitutes a small business
and it's you arguing with yourself!!!

Micro-enterprises are a subset of small enterprises, which are
themselves a sub-set of small and medium enterprises.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 10-Aug-17 8:29 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-10, Nightjar wrote:
...
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I
was probably thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK
businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees and have an annual
turnover of under £2 million.

See, there's already an argument over what constitutes a small business
and it's you arguing with yourself!!!

Micro-enterprises are a subset of small enterprises, which are themselves
a sub-set of small and medium enterprises.

Yes, but defining that in legal terms that would
allow some shiny bum to rule on what is and isnt
going to be allowed in high streets that are way
past their useby date anyway, aint gunna fly.

The whole point of modern malls is to allow a
decent mix of bit supermarkets and stuff like a
Walmart or Costco with lots of much smaller
operations so people can park the once and do
what they need to do there and then drive home
with some provision for the dregs of the place to
show up in public transport and then go home too.

The world's moved on, just like it always does
and there isnt any point in having stupid shiny
bums deciding on what happens in high streets
way past their useby date now even if dinosaurs
like you hate malls etc.

On Thursday, 10 August 2017 19:03:59 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Aug-17 5:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees

Our new Aldi only has 10

and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I was probably
thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses that
employ fewer than 10 employees

So our new Aldi would be fine....

I am sure you really understand that the numbers refer to the company,
not one branch of it, and are simply being stupid on purpose.

No he isnlt he realy is that stupid, but I thought the comapny size was 250..
When it came to charging for plastic bags, here;s how it was worked out.

Work out your number of employees

On the first day of the reporting year calculate how many full-time equivalent employees you have:

Work out how many hours a full-time employee would work in a year (for example 40 hours by 52 weeks is 2,080).
Multiply this by the amount of full-time workers there for the full year (for example 200 workers by 2,080 is 416,000).
Work out part-time and seasonal workers hours by multiplying their weekly hours by the weeks worked (for example 100 workers by 20 hours by 10 weeks, added to 100 workers by 40 hours by 25 weeks is 20,00 plus 100,000, giving 120,000).
Add the full-time and part-time or seasonal workers hours together (for example 416,000 plus 120,000 is 536,000).
Divide this by the amount of hours a full-time employee would work in a year (for example 536,000 divided by 2,080 is 257.7).

If this number is 250 or more then you must charge for bags.

On 11-Aug-17 12:25 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 10 August 2017 19:03:59 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 10-Aug-17 5:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is a perfectly good definition of small business already - fewer
than 50 employees

Our new Aldi only has 10

and an annual turnover under £10 million - although I was probably
thinking more of micro-enterprises; the 96% of UK businesses that
employ fewer than 10 employees

So our new Aldi would be fine....

I am sure you really understand that the numbers refer to the company,
not one branch of it, and are simply being stupid on purpose.

No he isnlt he realy is that stupid, but I thought the comapny size was 250....

A business with 250 employees or more is a large enterprise.



--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar posted
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.
That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen. Yes the
small businesses disappear because most people prefer supermarkets, and
sometimes that's a pity. However the supermarkets never raise their
prices afterwards, because they know there's another one waiting to move
in on them if they do.

I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Maybe they'd benefit even more if they reduced their prices a bit.

--
Jack

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen.

You've not noticed that a 'local' from a chain never has the same offers
or budget brands that a large store has?

That if it has a filling station, the petrol is more expensive than at a
large store with one?

The only 'offer' I've seen in my 'local' Tesco is the 3 quid 'meal' deal.

--
*WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen.

You've not noticed that a 'local' from a chain never has the same offers
or budget brands that a large store has?

Nope, that the chain doesn’t stop their special offers when one
of the locals that has passed their useby date has gone bust.

That if it has a filling station, the petrol is more
expensive than at a large store with one?

The customers buy the cheaper stuff. Can't imagine why for the life of me.

The only 'offer' I've seen in my 'local' Tesco is the 3 quid 'meal' deal.

Because you have wanked yourself completely blind, as usual.

On Saturday, 12 August 2017 09:00:48 UTC+1, Handsome Jack wrote:
Nightjar posted
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.
That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen.

You'd have to be very observant to see it.

Yes the
small businesses disappear because most people prefer supermarkets,

I'm not sure that is true because if it were there wouldn't be any small shops at all.


and
sometimes that's a pity. However the supermarkets never raise their
prices afterwards,

They don't need to that's not how it works.
When I first got my flat and my first flatmates father owned 2 toolshops one in leyton that he sold 1 year early and another in blackheath, so I asked him how much he could get an electric drill cheaper than argos he said he couldnt; get it cheaper himself than argos were sellng it for, and when he wanted an electric drill for personal use he went to argos he couldn't by one cheaper himself from his own shop.




because they know there's another one waiting to move
in on them if they do.

Kareg shops don't come up for sale that often si it doesnlt work like that.



I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Maybe they'd benefit even more if they reduced their prices a bit.

Problem is if you had a clue yuo;d realise that supermarkets get special bulk deals that the smaller shops just can;t match, when I left school I worked in an indian supermarket they had 5 shops but found it difficult to compete with thelarger supermarkets. The only way to compete was by employing relatives and now really paying them very well but promising them promotion and t4he chance of managing their own shop.

On 12-Aug-17 8:50 AM, Handsome Jack wrote:
Nightjar posted
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.
That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen. Yes the
small businesses disappear because most people prefer supermarkets, and
sometimes that's a pity. However the supermarkets never raise their
prices afterwards, because they know there's another one waiting to move
in on them if they do.

I didn't say they raised their prices. I said that they stopped special
offers, which are lower than normal prices. I was thinking not of
supermarkets, but of chains like Greggs, Dominoes etc. that are in
direct competition with the local shops on the high street, sometime
next door to them.

I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Maybe they'd benefit even more if they reduced their prices a bit.

Few have the profit margins they would need to be able to afford that.



--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 12-Aug-17 8:50 AM, Handsome Jack wrote:
Nightjar posted
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:
[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what
types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid
too
many of one type in one area.
That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.

People are always saying that, but I have never seen it happen. Yes the
small businesses disappear because most people prefer supermarkets, and
sometimes that's a pity. However the supermarkets never raise their
prices afterwards, because they know there's another one waiting to move
in on them if they do.

I didn't say they raised their prices. I said that they stopped special
offers, which are lower than normal prices. I was thinking not of
supermarkets, but of chains like Greggs, Dominoes etc. that are in direct
competition with the local shops on the high street, sometime next door to
them.

I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.

Maybe they'd benefit even more if they reduced their prices a bit.

Few have the profit margins they would need to be able to afford that.

Stiff ****, the world moves on, yet again. No shiny bum
playing King Canute will ever stop something like that.