I think the AirBnB argument flawed. COVID-19 forced AirBnB to choose between the renter (make them pay for a booking they can’t use) or the property owner (receive payment for a service not used). AirBnB chose the renter and in doing so lost its commission. Mary might prefer that they chose the property owner, but either way it’s not illustrative of any flaws in the market model. Rather its illustrative that we are all losers with COVID-19. The renter lost the trip, the property owner the rent and AirBnB its commission. I don’t see how a third way approach would ameliorate that.
I would agree with your statement except that as far as I’m aware they did still take their commission.They also expected the property owners to refund the renters immediately but did not refund the property owners until the date the trip was due to commence,holding on to millions of pounds of owners income that was paid direct to them not to the property owners and presumably gaining interest on it. When you book the money is held by Airbnb until 24 hours after your trip commences and is then passed to the owner. Why did Airbnb who had the money not refund from their accounts?
Alison Houston
4 years ago
The right to one’s property is guaranteed by the written part of our constitution. The Govt. does not have the right to seize private property, yet this is effectively what this state imposed lock down of the economy is. It is even more obvious when the government promises tax payers’ money and borrowed money to businesses, ostensibly to support them through this crisis of the government’s own making, but demand it back, once the business is tottering back on its feet again. Businesses are being forced to cease trading then they are being forced to borrow to try and meet their financial obligations. They will be punished for coming out at the other side of this by having to repay massive loans they would not have needed if the government had not closed them down. If they manage to keep going by burning through their savings they will be punished by being taxed at huge rates, to support all those businesses which weren’t as well prepared and the public sector. I don’t see how mutualisation is gong to help with this. Businesses must start trading again. The governments laws are trumped by the freedoms guaranteed by our 1688 constitution and by ignoring the rule of emergency, rushed through laws drawn up on the back of cigarette packets and postage stamps, at the direction of unelected public health officials, we would not be seeking to rid ourselves of the Rule of Law, only the rule of wrongly imposed rubbish.
nigel.simpsonfreelance
4 years ago
There has to be, if I dare say it, ‘a third way’. Socialism is the way to impoverish whole nations and inflict suffering on a massive scale. Unfettered capitalism allows the strong to exploit the weak. A mixed economy where the person and the family is at the centre of policy objectives, rather than the state or big business, is key. I think that we have allowed corporate capture of the State and that we have forgotten why we do business in the first place – to improve the lot of people.
Businesses should serve the nation that hosts them, just as we serve our own families. We support our weaker family members, not just replacing them with someone from another family if they can’t maximise our family’s production. Businesses need to train people locally to do the jobs that that economy needs and not just chase around the world for the workers prepared to put up with the lowest wages. No business should be so big that it cannot be allowed to fail nor so powerful that the State cannot control its excesses. No state should be so in control of people’s lives that any semblance of a free life is lost. Neither global capitalism nor international socialism is the answer.
How mixed is mixed is the problem and that will be the heart of politics forever. However, by returning agency to the nation state to follow its own course at least allows those arguments to influence the direction that nation takes at any moment, and that will inevitably mean that the mix will change from year to year. Different nations will take different paths which will create a kind of experimental laboratory where ideas are tried out and the best practise can spread to others, at least theoretically. Supranational governments and international corporations have a dampening effect on both innovation and free thinking, because a sort of group-think dominates and big solutions and centralisation are favoured.
Capitalism is not the problem here, rather it is big business corporatism with its big bucks bribery (sorry lobbying). We no long (and have not for decades) lived in a democracy rather it is a Corporate-ocracy.
cally hill
4 years ago
The problem is over population and this is the response. The lockdown has little to do with a virus and they will extend it longer and longer to suit the purpose of social control. They are scaremongering everyone to believe that it is dangerous to go near anybody else, hence there will be no revolts, revolution. They have now brought in a law which effectively says the NHS can pick and choose who it treats according to their status in society, their job roll etc. That is effectively Nazism. The homeless, those on benefits or or the disabled or low paid workers better hope they don’t end up hospital . Those with higher status, doctors, lawyers, lords, ladies, they have nothing to worry about. There will be plenty of respirators for them. Why should any small business close down when Amazon is still operating and right now selling plenty of unessential plastic crap. Why are Amazon deemed essential? They are not a food shop, they are not supplying water, what exactly makes them more essential than all the other shops that have closed down? THe worker in their huge factories are just a much of a risk of transmitting the disease as a local small business, in fact more so. The real reason is because Amazon is run by the elites and they want to steal business from everybody else. They are generally more expensive than everywhere else now. Most things advertised on Amazon can be sourced cheaper elsewhere. Especially when you have postage on top. We are slipping into totalitarian waters. Neighbours spying and grassing on each other. Need I say more.
Martin Harries
4 years ago
Thought-provoking piece, but …..
…we must now grasp the nettle of about re-institutionalising social purpose, and social obligations, in the world of commerce.
Not a peep about how that would manifest in practice.
In the West we are all free to agree to work for any company if the company makes an offer. No one is forced to work for any company. In a way, we are all self-employed, it’s just that many of us have only one customer. What your saying is that one customer owes me allegiance and all it can muster to underwrite my well-being. How Is that accomplished in the face of globalised competition?
You refer to the obligations of companies, but mention nothing about obligations of Company’s suppliers of (non-obligatory) labour services, aka employees. Slagging off one’s company – one’s sole customer, is a British tradition!
godfree
4 years ago
“Far more likely will be that we inch ever closer to adopting a system where an overwhelming state underwrites Airbnb capitalism. China, in other words, just without the bat soup.”
Far from being ‘overwhelming,’ as our media delights in depicting it, the Chinese State rules today as it has done for millennia”“with a light touch”“as anyone who has lived there can attest. (And bat soup is not a Chinese delicacy. For that you must trek to faraway Palau.)
We, like fish and water, barely notice the State we swim in. Though its pedigree is as old as China’s, ours is Roman and has always been overwhelming by design. Otherwise, how to control the far more numerous plebs and slaves?
Instead of unleashing the Praetorian Guard on the mob these days, our State practices selective terror, pour encourager les autres. Selective terror like: “¢ warrantless surveillance of private phone and email conversations. “¢ SWAT team raiding private homes and killing families; “¢ thousands of shootings of unarmed citizens by police “¢ harsh punishment of schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance “¢ endless unpopular wars “¢ secret bans on 50,000 people from flying and refusing explanations “¢ imprisoning 2,000,000 people witout trial “¢ executing 2,000 people each year prior to charging them. “¢ out-of-control government spending with little benefit to citizens “¢ heavily armed, militarized police; “¢ roadside strip searches; “¢ roving border sweeps that imprison citizens and non-citizens alike “¢ privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing citizens; “¢ fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on citizens’ private transactions “¢ militarized civilian agencies with huge stockpiles of ammunition
Once the war was over, the Chinese government did few of these things. Today, its police are unarmed, its legal system is highly trusted, and its government’s policies are extremely popular.
Our government does all of them, often, and overwhelms us with terror.
James Kumara-Lloyd
4 years ago
I cannot see what Airbnb did wrong. They entered into a commercial contract with their hosts and guests, then enacted force majeure due to the Coronavirus. Had the bookings been marketed and made directly between the guest and host, the situation would be exactly the same.
What I do object to is the government making it difficult entering into commercial relationships due to complicated IR35 rules. Thus forcing people into a zero hours employment contracts against their wishes. Thus adding unwanted obligations to both parties.
Also for employers (in better times), following a small downturn, making redundancies their first option. Like after your step grandfather they have reduced their obligations to their staff. But over the same time have received back increased obligations such as unpaid overtime.
I think the AirBnB argument flawed. COVID-19 forced AirBnB to choose between the renter (make them pay for a booking they can’t use) or the property owner (receive payment for a service not used). AirBnB chose the renter and in doing so lost its commission. Mary might prefer that they chose the property owner, but either way it’s not illustrative of any flaws in the market model. Rather its illustrative that we are all losers with COVID-19. The renter lost the trip, the property owner the rent and AirBnB its commission. I don’t see how a third way approach would ameliorate that.
I would agree with your statement except that as far as I’m aware they did still take their commission.They also expected the property owners to refund the renters immediately but did not refund the property owners until the date the trip was due to commence,holding on to millions of pounds of owners income that was paid direct to them not to the property owners and presumably gaining interest on it. When you book the money is held by Airbnb until 24 hours after your trip commences and is then passed to the owner. Why did Airbnb who had the money not refund from their accounts?
The right to one’s property is guaranteed by the written part of our constitution. The Govt. does not have the right to seize private property, yet this is effectively what this state imposed lock down of the economy is. It is even more obvious when the government promises tax payers’ money and borrowed money to businesses, ostensibly to support them through this crisis of the government’s own making, but demand it back, once the business is tottering back on its feet again. Businesses are being forced to cease trading then they are being forced to borrow to try and meet their financial obligations. They will be punished for coming out at the other side of this by having to repay massive loans they would not have needed if the government had not closed them down. If they manage to keep going by burning through their savings they will be punished by being taxed at huge rates, to support all those businesses which weren’t as well prepared and the public sector.
I don’t see how mutualisation is gong to help with this. Businesses must start trading again. The governments laws are trumped by the freedoms guaranteed by our 1688 constitution and by ignoring the rule of emergency, rushed through laws drawn up on the back of cigarette packets and postage stamps, at the direction of unelected public health officials, we would not be seeking to rid ourselves of the Rule of Law, only the rule of wrongly imposed rubbish.
There has to be, if I dare say it, ‘a third way’. Socialism is the way to impoverish whole nations and inflict suffering on a massive scale. Unfettered capitalism allows the strong to exploit the weak. A mixed economy where the person and the family is at the centre of policy objectives, rather than the state or big business, is key. I think that we have allowed corporate capture of the State and that we have forgotten why we do business in the first place – to improve the lot of people.
Businesses should serve the nation that hosts them, just as we serve our own families. We support our weaker family members, not just replacing them with someone from another family if they can’t maximise our family’s production. Businesses need to train people locally to do the jobs that that economy needs and not just chase around the world for the workers prepared to put up with the lowest wages. No business should be so big that it cannot be allowed to fail nor so powerful that the State cannot control its excesses. No state should be so in control of people’s lives that any semblance of a free life is lost. Neither global capitalism nor international socialism is the answer.
How mixed is mixed is the problem and that will be the heart of politics forever. However, by returning agency to the nation state to follow its own course at least allows those arguments to influence the direction that nation takes at any moment, and that will inevitably mean that the mix will change from year to year. Different nations will take different paths which will create a kind of experimental laboratory where ideas are tried out and the best practise can spread to others, at least theoretically. Supranational governments and international corporations have a dampening effect on both innovation and free thinking, because a sort of group-think dominates and big solutions and centralisation are favoured.
Capitalism is not the problem here, rather it is big business corporatism with its big bucks bribery (sorry lobbying). We no long (and have not for decades) lived in a democracy rather it is a Corporate-ocracy.
The problem is over population and this is the response. The lockdown has little to do with a virus and they will extend it longer and longer to suit the purpose of social control. They are scaremongering everyone to believe that it is dangerous to go near anybody else, hence there will be no revolts, revolution. They have now brought in a law which effectively says the NHS can pick and choose who it treats according to their status in society, their job roll etc. That is effectively Nazism. The homeless, those on benefits or or the disabled or low paid workers better hope they don’t end up hospital . Those with higher status, doctors, lawyers, lords, ladies, they have nothing to worry about. There will be plenty of respirators for them. Why should any small business close down when Amazon is still operating and right now selling plenty of unessential plastic crap. Why are Amazon deemed essential? They are not a food shop, they are not supplying water, what exactly makes them more essential than all the other shops that have closed down? THe worker in their huge factories are just a much of a risk of transmitting the disease as a local small business, in fact more so. The real reason is because Amazon is run by the elites and they want to steal business from everybody else. They are generally more expensive than everywhere else now. Most things advertised on Amazon can be sourced cheaper elsewhere. Especially when you have postage on top. We are slipping into totalitarian waters. Neighbours spying and grassing on each other. Need I say more.
Thought-provoking piece, but …..
Not a peep about how that would manifest in practice.
In the West we are all free to agree to work for any company if the company makes an offer. No one is forced to work for any company. In a way, we are all self-employed, it’s just that many of us have only one customer. What your saying is that one customer owes me allegiance and all it can muster to underwrite my well-being. How Is that accomplished in the face of globalised competition?
You refer to the obligations of companies, but mention nothing about obligations of Company’s suppliers of (non-obligatory) labour services, aka employees. Slagging off one’s company – one’s sole customer, is a British tradition!
“Far more likely will be that we inch ever closer to adopting a system where an overwhelming state underwrites Airbnb capitalism. China, in other words, just without the bat soup.”
Far from being ‘overwhelming,’ as our media delights in depicting it, the Chinese State rules today as it has done for millennia”“with a light touch”“as anyone who has lived there can attest. (And bat soup is not a Chinese delicacy. For that you must trek to faraway Palau.)
We, like fish and water, barely notice the State we swim in. Though its pedigree is as old as China’s, ours is Roman and has always been overwhelming by design. Otherwise, how to control the far more numerous plebs and slaves?
Instead of unleashing the Praetorian Guard on the mob these days, our State practices selective terror, pour encourager les autres. Selective terror like:
“¢ warrantless surveillance of private phone and email conversations.
“¢ SWAT team raiding private homes and killing families;
“¢ thousands of shootings of unarmed citizens by police
“¢ harsh punishment of schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance
“¢ endless unpopular wars
“¢ secret bans on 50,000 people from flying and refusing explanations
“¢ imprisoning 2,000,000 people witout trial
“¢ executing 2,000 people each year prior to charging them.
“¢ out-of-control government spending with little benefit to citizens
“¢ heavily armed, militarized police;
“¢ roadside strip searches;
“¢ roving border sweeps that imprison citizens and non-citizens alike
“¢ privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing citizens;
“¢ fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on citizens’ private transactions
“¢ militarized civilian agencies with huge stockpiles of ammunition
Once the war was over, the Chinese government did few of these things. Today, its police are unarmed, its legal system is highly trusted, and its government’s policies are extremely popular.
Our government does all of them, often, and overwhelms us with terror.
I cannot see what Airbnb did wrong. They entered into a commercial contract with their hosts and guests, then enacted force majeure due to the Coronavirus. Had the bookings been marketed and made directly between the guest and host, the situation would be exactly the same.
What I do object to is the government making it difficult entering into commercial relationships due to complicated IR35 rules. Thus forcing people into a zero hours employment contracts against their wishes. Thus adding unwanted obligations to both parties.
Also for employers (in better times), following a small downturn, making redundancies their first option. Like after your step grandfather they have reduced their obligations to their staff. But over the same time have received back increased obligations such as unpaid overtime.