The following applies in the province of Quebec (Canada).
In principle, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) requires merchants to label the price on each article, but allows for exceptions. For example, because of the increasingly popular use of optical scanners, retailers are no longer required to label each article; several avail themselves of this exemption, but are still subjected to a number of constraints that include, amongst others, mandatory display of each article’s price on the shelf and of a sign about the Price Accuracy Policy.
This policy includes measures to compensate the consumer in the event of any inconsistency between the price on the shelf, and that charged by the register.
If the product price is $10 or less, the merchant must give you the item for free.
If the product price is more than $10, the retailer must sell you product at the price displayed on the shelf and further give you a $10 discount.
Buyers beware!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Successes and pitfalls of technology
Technology has invaded workplaces, homes, vehicles, portable devices of all kinds, etc. Many will say it has freed man. This is true, from one point of view; appliances greatly facilitate household chores. It has also allowed man to express his creativity far more easily; inexpensive software now allows people with limited aptitude for drawing to create dazzling presentations and websites. The illustrations they create compete with those drawn by professional designers before the personal computer era. Cars have enabled the development of North America as we know it today, by giving greater freedom of movement to the middle class. Quick and relatively inexpensive air transport has brought continents closer and allowed people with average incomes to discover exotic and distant lands, a privilege once reserved to the elite.
But the effects of technology are not always positive. Increased individualism and selfishness often results from its use. It also induces a form of addiction, which sometimes almost amounts to slavery: millions of people, staring at a computer screen, line up thousands of lines of code to teach computers how to process vast amounts of information, day after day, in many cases night after night. More simply, remember your dismay when your computer crashes or a power outage occurs. Also think about the violations of privacy and all forms of viruses and other malware. Moreover, technology has contributed to widen the gap between rich and poor nations and even between well-off and underprivileged people in Western societies, in short, it has created a digital divide.
In conclusion, we must exercise discernment in the use of technology and keep in mind that they are not omnipotent; they will never confer eternal youth, let alone immortality, on humanity, and will not redefine our values for us. They are inanimate and as such without values; they simply fall within the system of values that we privilege. Technological tools can however be very useful to humanity, provided that we direct their development and use. Mankind is too often made to serve machines, or at least forced to adjust his life or his behaviour to them, whereas machines should be made to adapt to humans and be useful to mankind.
To learn more about these issues, see «Consommation et nouvelles technologies — Au monde de l’hyper» (Consumption and New Technologies — In the Hyper world), soon to be translated in English.
But the effects of technology are not always positive. Increased individualism and selfishness often results from its use. It also induces a form of addiction, which sometimes almost amounts to slavery: millions of people, staring at a computer screen, line up thousands of lines of code to teach computers how to process vast amounts of information, day after day, in many cases night after night. More simply, remember your dismay when your computer crashes or a power outage occurs. Also think about the violations of privacy and all forms of viruses and other malware. Moreover, technology has contributed to widen the gap between rich and poor nations and even between well-off and underprivileged people in Western societies, in short, it has created a digital divide.
In conclusion, we must exercise discernment in the use of technology and keep in mind that they are not omnipotent; they will never confer eternal youth, let alone immortality, on humanity, and will not redefine our values for us. They are inanimate and as such without values; they simply fall within the system of values that we privilege. Technological tools can however be very useful to humanity, provided that we direct their development and use. Mankind is too often made to serve machines, or at least forced to adjust his life or his behaviour to them, whereas machines should be made to adapt to humans and be useful to mankind.
To learn more about these issues, see «Consommation et nouvelles technologies — Au monde de l’hyper» (Consumption and New Technologies — In the Hyper world), soon to be translated in English.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Over-the-counter DNA tests
Here is a summary of my column of Thursday May 13 on Radio Ville-Marie (91.3 FM in Montreal) for those who have missed it.
Tuesday May 11, Pathway Genomics announced its intention of selling an over-the-counter DNA test in 6000 Walgreen stores in the United States. Two days later, Walgreen announced the cancellation of this agreement following an intervention by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), the US organization «responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation ».
I welcome the FDA’s and Walgreen’s decision, because immoderate use of such tests by an uninformed public could lead to serious abuses. First and foremost, we can think of the dangers associated with the interpretation of results, which can easily lead to anxiety or distress, or on the contrary falsely reassure a person while a severe illness is underlying. Also think about the dangers of discrimination against people identified as being at risk of contracting certain diseases (cancer, Alzheimer's ...) when they apply for a job or want to buy life insurance.
Finally, think about all the swindlers who inevitably arise to take advantage of people’s disarray when a test revealed the possibility of contracting a serious disease. «Your genes indicate that you are in danger of contracting breast, or prostate, cancer? Don’t worry, our researchers have discovered an elixir that will decrease your risk! Available in all good pharmacies and online ». It would be the resurgence of a form of advertising as rowdy as misleading intended to exploit people's worries. Many have without doubt already envisioned the possibility of making profits totalling billions.
Let professionals advise us about our health and keep in mind this reasoning: if a disease is incurable anyway, perhaps you are better off not knowing that you have a 54% probability of getting it.
Tuesday May 11, Pathway Genomics announced its intention of selling an over-the-counter DNA test in 6000 Walgreen stores in the United States. Two days later, Walgreen announced the cancellation of this agreement following an intervention by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), the US organization «responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation ».
I welcome the FDA’s and Walgreen’s decision, because immoderate use of such tests by an uninformed public could lead to serious abuses. First and foremost, we can think of the dangers associated with the interpretation of results, which can easily lead to anxiety or distress, or on the contrary falsely reassure a person while a severe illness is underlying. Also think about the dangers of discrimination against people identified as being at risk of contracting certain diseases (cancer, Alzheimer's ...) when they apply for a job or want to buy life insurance.
Finally, think about all the swindlers who inevitably arise to take advantage of people’s disarray when a test revealed the possibility of contracting a serious disease. «Your genes indicate that you are in danger of contracting breast, or prostate, cancer? Don’t worry, our researchers have discovered an elixir that will decrease your risk! Available in all good pharmacies and online ». It would be the resurgence of a form of advertising as rowdy as misleading intended to exploit people's worries. Many have without doubt already envisioned the possibility of making profits totalling billions.
Let professionals advise us about our health and keep in mind this reasoning: if a disease is incurable anyway, perhaps you are better off not knowing that you have a 54% probability of getting it.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Quebec’s Budget and consumption: Minister Bachand’s miscalculation
Further to my radio column of Thursday, April 1 on the same subject, here are a few thoughts.
Minister Bachand deludes himself thinking that an increase of QST and the gas tax will bring more money into the coffers of the state; it’s a mistake governments often make.
In reality, many consumers already have a very tight budget; unable to pay the excess expenditure of hundreds of dollars per year incurred by these tax increases, they will adopt tactics to lower their expenses: 1. Reducing the purchase of certain goods and services; 2. Buying outside Quebec; 3. Purchasing goods and services on the black market to avoid paying taxes.
I do not advocate the use of these tactics, some of which are illegal; I only report what happens every time the government unduly increases the tax burden, especially in Quebec where the citizen is already the most taxed in North America. Ultimately, you can safely bet that Quebec will see its fiscal revenues decline.
Furthermore, the economic crisis has been severe and the recovery is still fragile; in fact, there is virtually no job creation. All these tax and tariffs increases will likely nip recovery in the bud.
The solution to Quebec’s deficit does not lie in increased state revenues but in a substantial reduction of the bill incurred for social programs, which amounts to 16 billion dollars more than the neighboring province, Ontario. We can no longer afford these privileges. For example, the $7 a day child care program alone, whose real cost is $45, represents an expenditure of over $2 billion for Quebec. Sheer nonsense!
For this program, I propose that access to child care be free for the poorest people, such as single mothers with incomes nearing poverty; others should pay the actual cost of the service. In any case, it really benefits only the richest.
Besides, if states want to increase their income, they can easily impose a surtax on speculative gains, but this requires concerted international action. Will our leaders have the political courage to confront the sometimes shady world of financiers and speculators?
Minister Bachand deludes himself thinking that an increase of QST and the gas tax will bring more money into the coffers of the state; it’s a mistake governments often make.
In reality, many consumers already have a very tight budget; unable to pay the excess expenditure of hundreds of dollars per year incurred by these tax increases, they will adopt tactics to lower their expenses: 1. Reducing the purchase of certain goods and services; 2. Buying outside Quebec; 3. Purchasing goods and services on the black market to avoid paying taxes.
I do not advocate the use of these tactics, some of which are illegal; I only report what happens every time the government unduly increases the tax burden, especially in Quebec where the citizen is already the most taxed in North America. Ultimately, you can safely bet that Quebec will see its fiscal revenues decline.
Furthermore, the economic crisis has been severe and the recovery is still fragile; in fact, there is virtually no job creation. All these tax and tariffs increases will likely nip recovery in the bud.
The solution to Quebec’s deficit does not lie in increased state revenues but in a substantial reduction of the bill incurred for social programs, which amounts to 16 billion dollars more than the neighboring province, Ontario. We can no longer afford these privileges. For example, the $7 a day child care program alone, whose real cost is $45, represents an expenditure of over $2 billion for Quebec. Sheer nonsense!
For this program, I propose that access to child care be free for the poorest people, such as single mothers with incomes nearing poverty; others should pay the actual cost of the service. In any case, it really benefits only the richest.
Besides, if states want to increase their income, they can easily impose a surtax on speculative gains, but this requires concerted international action. Will our leaders have the political courage to confront the sometimes shady world of financiers and speculators?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Towards responsible capitalism
Confronted to the speculation we observe in financial markets, I began a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism. In the first, I demonstrated the harms of speculation, especially the relationship between it and the economic and financial crisis raging on the planet since summer 2007. In the second, I talked about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compared two forms of investment in a high tech company. In the third column, I presented the financing needs of companies involved in technology. In this fourth and last column, I will introduce a new mode of economic organization to focus on, responsible capitalism.
To be beneficial to all mankind, development, technological or otherwise, must be based on a new paradigm called responsible capitalism, a concept we have already discussed in 2007 in Consommation et luxe. We define responsible capitalism as a socio-economic system based on free circulation of trade, business, industry and finance, in a perspective of respect for the interests of all stakeholders: the ordinary citizen, the State, financial institutions, businesses themselves their customers, employees, suppliers and investors.
Derived from the very world that gave birth to it, that of business, responsible capitalism is part of an evolution of capitalism, from Venice’s merchant capitalism to industrial Revolution’s industrial capitalism in the XIXth century, the to modern day financial capitalism (For these three forms of capitalism, see K. Galbraith, The Economics of Innocent Fraud, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, p. 8.).
Aware of their responsibilities in society, more and more business men and women can only subscribe to a more humane vision of commercial, industrial and financial practices. To those who might think me naive, keep in mind that I have worked in the business world for over 25 years and still am very much involved in it; I can assure you that it is not populated solely by gangsters, swindlers, tyrants and speculators. As evidence of this, I present organizations such as BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), «A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992», whose mission is to «work with business to create a just and sustainable world».
Amongst the most fervent advocates of responsible capitalism, there are also influential politicians such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama. Thus, during the campaign that led him to the presidency of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a «family type» capitalism, based on more human values, which is within the context of social responsibility we have described: «I believe in the creative force of capitalism, but I am convinced that capitalism cannot survive without ethics, without respect for a number of spiritual values, moral values, without humanism, without culture. […] Capitalism must serve a certain idea of man. I believe in the ethics of capitalism. I do not accept, nor do thousands of entrepreneurs, for paid work and entrepreneurship to be violated by the excessive remuneration and privileges benefiting a small minority of CEOs. I do not accept that, around the world, for reasons of pure profit, some people toy with employees and plants as one moves pieces on a board game. […] I will reinforce «family type» capitalism. »
One must admit, even without outrageously speculative practices, the nature of the stock market is forcing companies to engage in a race for profitability, which often forces them to make decisions contrary to harmonious long term development and some contrary to the interests of their employees and customers. From its initial public offering of shares (IPO), a company loses some of its freedom of action and is from then on subject to the profit demands of mutual fund managers, large investors and speculators. This denatures the company, which explains why Guy Laliberté has always refused to list his company on the stock exchange. Cirque du Soleil would probably not be what it is today if the company was publicly traded, because Mr. Laliberté would not have had the flexibility to choose its partners, artists, shows, and more. I also believe that we must see in Toyota’s recent setbacks the effect of a race to profitability, which had a negative impact on the quality of its products.
Some CEOs of large companies refuse to follow the whims of investors. Thus, here's what Nick Hayek, CEO of Swatch, said on March 21, 2009 further to a decline in earnings of the company he heads: «For a company listed on the stock market, announcing a decline in profit, a10% reduction in the workforce can bring the share value back up. Such is not the case in our company. There will be no layoffs or reduced investment at Swatch. We accept having diminished earnings and not to be the darlings of the stock market. » Refusal to play the stock market game to appeal to investors is a good example of responsible capitalism.
On December 3, 2008, the United States, columnist Ray Williams published an article in which he argued that the current business paradigm was no longer viable, encouraging entrepreneurs to adopt responsible capitalism. Capitalist societies have initiated evolutionary transformation of who we are, what we value and how we behave. This requires social and environmental responsibility, to which CEOs must actively participate. This transformation requires a model that focuses on more than the sole profitability (bottom line) objective. It considers a creation of wealth that adds personal, social and ecological gains to the bottom line. (R. Williams, «CEOs need to adopt responsible capitalism», Financial Post, 3 décembre 2008)
US President Barack Obama’s position fits into this perspective. For instance, in a speech pronounced on February 24, 2009, he defended a vision of capitalism in which prosperity benefits to all. Although he did not himself named this new capitalism, others have done for him, Responsible Capitalism. Williams goes on saying that President Barack Obama’s speech was peppered with phrases and ideas outlining his vision of his government's responsibility to not only promote a strong economy, but also to ensure that ordinary people were taking advantage of this economy . He [Obama] has not yet fully articulated his economic philosophy, and has not given it a name either. But we can see in this speech outlines a new approach that could be called "responsible capitalism" in contrast with the "crony capitalism" of the Bush era. […] More accurately, he redefines the meaning of a "healthy business climate" — a widely shared prosperity for workers, an economy that creates good jobs, allows access to the middle class to the poorest, provides first rate schools, decent health care, and housing that families can afford, while protecting the environment.
President Obama also criticizes abuses, including those of the industry and the financial world; in his opinion, government must exert tighter control in these areas.
In short, the need for a reform of capitalism no longer need to be demonstrated; countless leading actors agree on the need for international collaboration to define actions to take, world economies being so interrelated that unilateral action by one country would have no effect. To put in place measures to curb speculation, on raw materials for instance, must necessarily involve all major states.
To be beneficial to all mankind, development, technological or otherwise, must be based on a new paradigm called responsible capitalism, a concept we have already discussed in 2007 in Consommation et luxe. We define responsible capitalism as a socio-economic system based on free circulation of trade, business, industry and finance, in a perspective of respect for the interests of all stakeholders: the ordinary citizen, the State, financial institutions, businesses themselves their customers, employees, suppliers and investors.
Derived from the very world that gave birth to it, that of business, responsible capitalism is part of an evolution of capitalism, from Venice’s merchant capitalism to industrial Revolution’s industrial capitalism in the XIXth century, the to modern day financial capitalism (For these three forms of capitalism, see K. Galbraith, The Economics of Innocent Fraud, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, p. 8.).
Aware of their responsibilities in society, more and more business men and women can only subscribe to a more humane vision of commercial, industrial and financial practices. To those who might think me naive, keep in mind that I have worked in the business world for over 25 years and still am very much involved in it; I can assure you that it is not populated solely by gangsters, swindlers, tyrants and speculators. As evidence of this, I present organizations such as BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), «A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992», whose mission is to «work with business to create a just and sustainable world».
Amongst the most fervent advocates of responsible capitalism, there are also influential politicians such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama. Thus, during the campaign that led him to the presidency of France in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a «family type» capitalism, based on more human values, which is within the context of social responsibility we have described: «I believe in the creative force of capitalism, but I am convinced that capitalism cannot survive without ethics, without respect for a number of spiritual values, moral values, without humanism, without culture. […] Capitalism must serve a certain idea of man. I believe in the ethics of capitalism. I do not accept, nor do thousands of entrepreneurs, for paid work and entrepreneurship to be violated by the excessive remuneration and privileges benefiting a small minority of CEOs. I do not accept that, around the world, for reasons of pure profit, some people toy with employees and plants as one moves pieces on a board game. […] I will reinforce «family type» capitalism. »
One must admit, even without outrageously speculative practices, the nature of the stock market is forcing companies to engage in a race for profitability, which often forces them to make decisions contrary to harmonious long term development and some contrary to the interests of their employees and customers. From its initial public offering of shares (IPO), a company loses some of its freedom of action and is from then on subject to the profit demands of mutual fund managers, large investors and speculators. This denatures the company, which explains why Guy Laliberté has always refused to list his company on the stock exchange. Cirque du Soleil would probably not be what it is today if the company was publicly traded, because Mr. Laliberté would not have had the flexibility to choose its partners, artists, shows, and more. I also believe that we must see in Toyota’s recent setbacks the effect of a race to profitability, which had a negative impact on the quality of its products.
Some CEOs of large companies refuse to follow the whims of investors. Thus, here's what Nick Hayek, CEO of Swatch, said on March 21, 2009 further to a decline in earnings of the company he heads: «For a company listed on the stock market, announcing a decline in profit, a10% reduction in the workforce can bring the share value back up. Such is not the case in our company. There will be no layoffs or reduced investment at Swatch. We accept having diminished earnings and not to be the darlings of the stock market. » Refusal to play the stock market game to appeal to investors is a good example of responsible capitalism.
On December 3, 2008, the United States, columnist Ray Williams published an article in which he argued that the current business paradigm was no longer viable, encouraging entrepreneurs to adopt responsible capitalism. Capitalist societies have initiated evolutionary transformation of who we are, what we value and how we behave. This requires social and environmental responsibility, to which CEOs must actively participate. This transformation requires a model that focuses on more than the sole profitability (bottom line) objective. It considers a creation of wealth that adds personal, social and ecological gains to the bottom line. (R. Williams, «CEOs need to adopt responsible capitalism», Financial Post, 3 décembre 2008)
US President Barack Obama’s position fits into this perspective. For instance, in a speech pronounced on February 24, 2009, he defended a vision of capitalism in which prosperity benefits to all. Although he did not himself named this new capitalism, others have done for him, Responsible Capitalism. Williams goes on saying that President Barack Obama’s speech was peppered with phrases and ideas outlining his vision of his government's responsibility to not only promote a strong economy, but also to ensure that ordinary people were taking advantage of this economy . He [Obama] has not yet fully articulated his economic philosophy, and has not given it a name either. But we can see in this speech outlines a new approach that could be called "responsible capitalism" in contrast with the "crony capitalism" of the Bush era. […] More accurately, he redefines the meaning of a "healthy business climate" — a widely shared prosperity for workers, an economy that creates good jobs, allows access to the middle class to the poorest, provides first rate schools, decent health care, and housing that families can afford, while protecting the environment.
President Obama also criticizes abuses, including those of the industry and the financial world; in his opinion, government must exert tighter control in these areas.
In short, the need for a reform of capitalism no longer need to be demonstrated; countless leading actors agree on the need for international collaboration to define actions to take, world economies being so interrelated that unilateral action by one country would have no effect. To put in place measures to curb speculation, on raw materials for instance, must necessarily involve all major states.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Link between stock market speculation and corporate bankruptcies
Confronted to the speculation we observe in financial markets, I began a series of columns on the ravages of financial capitalism. In the first, I demonstrated the harms of speculation, especially the relationship between it and the economic and financial crisis raging on the planet since summer 2007. In the second, I talked about the birth and evolution of capitalism and oft he stock market, and compared two forms of investment in a high tech company. In this third column, I present the financing needs of companies involved in technology. Of course, these findings also prove accurate in other sectors of economic activity.
I have already outlined the fact that today technological development requires massive injections of capital, available only to States and major financial players, such as banks, mutual funds and a few wealthy investors, amongst whom we find both entrepreneurs and speculators. Small technology companies are struggling to find capital for their development; they rely on state subsidies, bank loans, venture capital and a few private investors. When they reach a certain size, they seek to get listed on the stock market through an IPO; from then on, they are subjected to the dictates of investors demanding an increased profitability year after year. Failure to deliver will cause their shares to be dumped, their capitalization diminished and their development compromised.
Several flourishing companies have disappeared over the years. Even large companies, sometimes listed on the stock market for decades, are vulnerable; some have collapsed, their shares sometimes dropping from hundreds of dollars to a few cents. Consider Norton Telecom (Nortel) a jewel high-tech company in Canada. Market speculation is perhaps not the only culprit in Nortel’s bankruptcy, but it is a major factor. Without the excessive demands of some large investors with respect to a short-term excessive profitability, business decisions made by management would probably have been different; they would have been better suited to a more harmonious long term development of the company. Companies, technological or otherwise, should not have to finance through the stock markets and see their business decisions dictated by a handful of speculators who care only about their own short term profit, often at the expense of the company itself.
What other avenues might there be? I have already said that technological development can take place in a capitalist type economic organization, while remaining beneficial to society as a whole. However, to remain the privileged method of economic organization, capitalism must transform, be associated with State imposed social measures, and above all eliminate, or at the very least restrict, speculation. This new paradigm is already emerging in the form of responsible capitalism and new values; in my next column, I will present its broad outlines.
I have already outlined the fact that today technological development requires massive injections of capital, available only to States and major financial players, such as banks, mutual funds and a few wealthy investors, amongst whom we find both entrepreneurs and speculators. Small technology companies are struggling to find capital for their development; they rely on state subsidies, bank loans, venture capital and a few private investors. When they reach a certain size, they seek to get listed on the stock market through an IPO; from then on, they are subjected to the dictates of investors demanding an increased profitability year after year. Failure to deliver will cause their shares to be dumped, their capitalization diminished and their development compromised.
Several flourishing companies have disappeared over the years. Even large companies, sometimes listed on the stock market for decades, are vulnerable; some have collapsed, their shares sometimes dropping from hundreds of dollars to a few cents. Consider Norton Telecom (Nortel) a jewel high-tech company in Canada. Market speculation is perhaps not the only culprit in Nortel’s bankruptcy, but it is a major factor. Without the excessive demands of some large investors with respect to a short-term excessive profitability, business decisions made by management would probably have been different; they would have been better suited to a more harmonious long term development of the company. Companies, technological or otherwise, should not have to finance through the stock markets and see their business decisions dictated by a handful of speculators who care only about their own short term profit, often at the expense of the company itself.
What other avenues might there be? I have already said that technological development can take place in a capitalist type economic organization, while remaining beneficial to society as a whole. However, to remain the privileged method of economic organization, capitalism must transform, be associated with State imposed social measures, and above all eliminate, or at the very least restrict, speculation. This new paradigm is already emerging in the form of responsible capitalism and new values; in my next column, I will present its broad outlines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)