Friday, 15 July 2016

'BREXIT' AFFECTS COST OF COMICS - BUT DON'T PANIC, IT'S NOT AS BAD AS YOU MAY THINK (UPDATED - AGAIN)...


The good ol' days.  (Sigh!)

According to one site a few days ago, DIAMOND
DISTRIBUTORS are increasing the price of some U.S.
comics by up to 25% as of today (as a result of the BREXIT
vote) and others on Monday 18th of this month.  I'm told
by those 'in the know' that the average increase will actually
be much lower than this and won't come into effect until
the new titles go on sale on Wednesday 20th.

Update as of July 19th:

Whooaaa!  Even more good news!  It now seems
that the price rise won't take effect for at least a further
week - possibly even a fortnight.  I'll let you know when
I get any more news, so stay tuned, Criv-ites!

Update as July 20th:

It's next week, frantic ones - July 27th.

32 comments:

Mark Carter said...

I can't understand why the prices have suddenly been affected when we haven't even actually begun to detach ourselves from Europe yet. Methinks the greedy bastards are just using it as an excuse.
I don't buy comics any more, so I shouldn't really get too annoyed, I suppose, but this Brexit business is getting on my nerves now.

Colin Jones said...

Yay, another example of the benefits of "freedom" from the evil EU.

Kid said...

Well, when it comes to financial matters, I don't really have a scooby about what's going on at the best of times, MC.

******

There it is again, CJ - that famous optimism and positive attitude. One benefit is that we'll be able to turf terrorists out of the country without being told we're not allowed to. That in itself is maybe worth a few pence on the price of a comicbook.

Colin Jones said...

So Kid, the economy can go to pot but at least we can kick out some terrorists, woo hoo. And we have an ageing population coupled with a falling birthrate among the native British so anybody who thinks Brexit will reduce immigration to "tens of thousands" is in for a big disappointment.

Kid said...

CJ, you don't half talk a load of old b*ll*cks at times. Not everyone who voted for Brexit did so because immigration was their main concern. For some, it was a simple matter of not having rules and regulations imposed on them by people they hadn't voted for. And it's far too soon to say that the economy is going to pot - there seems to be a difference of opinion on the matter in the newspapers and other media. However, should the economy be the number one priority, even if it means abandoning sovereignty of our own country? And the birthrate falling is one of those statistical 'slight of hand' illusions that ignores the fact that there's more kids in this country today than there's been in decades. The simple truth is that a smaller percentage of today's population having kids is still a far greater number than a larger percentage of the smaller population of the 1960s having kids. FACT.

DeadSpiderEye said...

You know I agonised over that vote, I think a that's true of a lot of voters. They voted to stay here by a small majority, something that bucked the local trend, the kippers had their largest increase in the vote here during the last election. One thing that really struck home to me about the campaign and the post vote reaction, is the moral distance between the voters and the media. Speaking personally, I don't know anyone who recites the spoon fed propaganda we were and are still being fed. Strangely, there are no gangs roaming the streets chanting xenophobic slogans, there wasn't even any display of undue hubris from the victors, there was a discrete fireworks display that weekend. Meanwhile metropolitan forces are sending out circulars trying to drum up hate crime reports, yeah--we've got a long way to go still.

As I mentioned, I agonised and I nearly let it go without voting, it was just the media reaction after the Jo Cox murder that galvanised my conviction. After witnessing the aftermath of the vote, the utter contempt for democracy in the media. I'm just so glad I voted the way I did. Normally I don't like to tell people how to vote, I think it's insulting to patronise others with your own particular point of view but if they did it again, I'd be out there with my campaign button.

As for the price of comics, well £3-50 is too rich for me anyway and I'm not really a fan of the contemporary US comic scene.

Kid said...

Nicely done, DSE. After telling us about all the agonizing you did over voting, I'm still unclear about which side you voted for. C'mon, spill the beans. I think the public were lied to by both sides, and, amazingly, they even used some of the same lies. Politicians always tell people what they think they want to hear.

DeadSpiderEye said...

Don't get me started on the politicians, you're right, there's nothing much to choose between them, that's what I meant by that 'moral distance'. The few discussions I witnessed on the topic during the lead up to the vote, were characterised by thoughtful discussion between ordinary voters and yet the media and the politicians, yet again managed to surpass even the lowest expectations of behaviour. That is contemptible in what's supposed to be a civilised democracy, the voters are the people who have my respect. I don't care which side they voted for because I know it was tough choice for a lot of people.

DeadSpiderEye said...

Oh yeah I forgot to tell you which side I voted for, now let me see if I can just remember um...

Kid said...

Remember what? I've forgotten what we were talking about. Um...

Paul McScotty- Muir said...

I don't think this has a lot to do with Brexit although it will have some effect WITH the pound having fallen so it will be slightly more expensive to do business in the UK at present - but a 25%increase !? more like greedy sods and possibly the final nail in the US comic market in the UK - for me Brexit was a bad move (my personal opinion) BUT the vote was to leave so lets all wait and see what happens I and others may be pleasantly surprised.

Kid said...

Well, it has something to do with Brexit to the extent that that's why the pound fell, PM, but I'm told that the actual increase will most likely be less than 10%. That doesn't take into account those greedy s*ds you mention 'though. Some shops may charge more than is warranted, but it would be incredibly short-sighted of them to do so, in as much as it may well chase customers away. I don't mind which way people voted, but I get irked when some folk characterize all 'leave' voters as racists, or all 'remain' voters as traitors - or whatever some thickos on either side are calling the other.

Paul McScotty- Muir said...

Oh I agree it has to do with Brexit as that is why the £ has fallen but Brexit properly wont take full effect (good, bad, or very bad) until article 50 is signed and when it eventually happens and we see what leaving actually is on paper. I hardly buy any new comics now and an increase of over 10% may mean that goes down to zero (I may now just pick up the MWOM etc again instead for Marvel as they are pretty good value ) my purchases re comics are 90% back issues or collections (lets hope the Dr Strange collection does not increase to much)

Kid said...

Right with you on that Dr. Strange Omnibus, PM - I'm looking forward to it as well, so hopefully any increase won't be excessive.

Colin Jones said...

Kid, I agree that there are more kids now than 50 years ago but it's the percentages that count. There are already more people aged over 60 than under 16 and the pensioner section of the population is growing far faster than the young. There are currently about 1.5 million people in the UK aged over 85 - by 2050 there will be about FOUR MILLION people aged over 85 !!! The NHS and social care services are struggling to cope NOW so how the hell will they cope when there are vastly more elderly people than now ? And maybe YOU didn't vote Brexit because of immigration but many, many did which is why the Leave camp made such a huge issue of it during the referendum campaign, don't be so naive. And won't it be ironic if your vote to leave the EU results in Scotland leaving the UK - something neither of us wants to see.

Kid said...

The percentages may count with you, CJ, but in this case, not with me. There are more people on the planet today than at any time in history, so that means more old people, more children, and more age groups in between. We're overrunning the planet like a plague, at the expense of other species and the environment, and there are just far too damn many of us. People need to stop breeding for a while - it's something just about any pair of idiots (male & female) can do. As for the NHS, remember it's not just old people who use its resources, it's children and other age groups too.

As you're so fond of statistics, let me give you some. In 2011, people between the age of 65 and 90 represented only around 16% or 17% of Britain's population (if I understand the figures correctly). Newsflash, CJ - the remaining 83% or 84% also use the NHS, so pensioners don't have a monopoly on its services.

As for being naive, certain sections of the Leave camp made an issue of immigration because they were following their own agenda and trying to secure as many votes as possible, but that hardly proves that most people who wanted to leave did so based on immigration. And, even if it did, that doesn't mean that having concerns about immigration makes one a racist. A lot of 'leavers' (from what I've read) were distinctly embarrassed by Nigel and Boris seemingly being the most prominent proponents for leaving, and don't consider them as being representative of their own views.

It's truly naive to assume that everything is black and white, and that there no shades of grey in between. There was a variety of different views amongst those who wished to remain, and one can't and shouldn't tar them all with the same brush - and the same applies in the case of those who wished to leave. I don't, YOU do! You're the one who's 'naive', CJ.

As for Scotland leaving the U.K., the SNP show no consistency in their thinking. Why are they so determined to 'cast off the shackles' of the U.K., but submit to the shackles of the E.U.? What would happen if the E.U. passed a rule or regulation that the SNP didn't like? Would they then want to leave? The fact is, Scotland voted to remain within the U.K., and the U.K. voted to leave the E.U., and that's how democracy works - the majority calls the tune. As part of the U.K., we can't threaten to leave every time we don't get what we want. That's just petulant and childish. The point being that the SNP have no valid grounds for insisting on another referendum.

Now stop talking p*sh. Not all Brexit voters are racists, and pensioners are not the largest users of the NHS. And even if they were, the majority of them have paid into it all their working lives and are entitled to it.

Mark Carter said...

All I know is that nearly everybody on either side of the campaign seem to have b*ggered off. That's politicians for you. And wasn't Nigel Farage great? After declaring it our Independence Day, he said; "Well, I've got what I always wanted. I'm off now to enjoy myself".

Kid said...

Well, he only has himself to enjoy.

Colin Jones said...

Kid, I wasn't meaning to be ageist in my comment, simply pointing out that the ageing population means we will need mass immigration whether we are in the EU or not. You say pensioners made up about 17% of the UK population in 2011 but by 2050 it will be more like 30% - and I didn't say all Brexit voters were racist but I firmly believe most expect a significant fall in immigration will occur due to Brexit, I live in an area that voted heavily to leave and I'm certain immigration was the cause around here. But I completely agree that "we're overrunning the planet like a plague" - but nobody says anything because almost all the growth is in Africa and Asia and everybody is terrified of seeming racist if they criticize. And I accept that there's nothing inevitable about Scotland leaving the UK - even if that happened there's no guarantee Scotland would easily get back into the EU because Spain could block it due to their own problems with Catalonia's demands for independence.

Kid said...

"Ask ANY Brexit voter" is what you said on another blog, CJ, which tends to indicate that you believe all 'leavers' think the same thing in regard to immigration. And whether you mean to be ageist or not, you ARE being. Everybody uses the NHS, but you seem to see only old people as a drain on resources and as a problem. This permeates many of your comments on the subject, but the fact is that we're ALL using the NHS, and pensioners - even at 30% - are less than a third of the population. Why pick on them? They've paid more into the system than anybody else. And the problem with mass immigration is that it tends to provide a cheaper workforce (despite the so-called living wage), thus keeping the cost of wages down overall. This may help some businesses to keep overheads down ('though the bosses and shareholders still get their huge slice of the pie), but it's at the expense of workers in general. What I'm trying to say is, there are as many potential problems in staying in the E.U. as there are in leaving it, and nobody really knows what will happen till it happens. But at least we'll be masters of our own fate, which, to some, is worth the cost (if any). Remember, CJ, in 2050, you'll be 84 if you're still around, so it's not really something you need worry about. Unless, of course, your concern is that there'll be no NHS by the time YOU need it in your old age.

Colin Jones said...

Well, it's a fact that elderly people use the NHS a lot more and there's the big problem of "bed blocking". I believe the ageing population is the greatest crisis of the coming decades, it's not being ageist to say that, it's just a fact. People are living longer and longer, in fact it's often stated that a third or even a half of today's babies will live to 100 years old, I can't even begin to imagine how society can cope with that. As for the NHS - I give it maybe 15-20 years at most before it collapses and is replaced by private health insurance. But I've got no children and, as Andrea Leadsom correctly stated, I don't have a stake in the future so none of this is my problem.

Kid said...

The NHS exists to help people who are ill - of all ages. Naturally, as people age and become more frail and prone to sickness, they might need medical attention more often (although mot all old people succumb to ill-health). So, even if it were true that old people use the NHS 'a lot more', that only means that it's serving its purpose and doing what it was invented for. And as 'old people' over the age of 65 still constitute a minority, then they should hardly be seen as a problem or a crisis.

In my view, NHS money shouldn't be spent on 'gender realignment' and nonsense like that. It should be spent on restoring sick people to health. With advances in technology and medical procedure, demands on the NHS are always going to rise, so the more it can do, the more it's going to be called upon to do. That's the problem - NOT the age of the patients.

There's a tone of resentment towards old people that runs through a lot of your comments, CJ. You seem to resent them getting free bus passes, cold winter payments, and free TV licenses, etc. It appears that you think all old people are swimming in money, based solely on the fact that your mother wasn't short of a bob or two in her old age. The whole point of being born into this world is to live a long and healthy, happy life, and the more people who can do that gives a point and a purpose to life, and justifies the NHS's existence because that's what it's there for - to treat or alleviate sickness and prolong life.

Funding the NHS to meet the demands on its resources in the future might be a problem, but the solution shouldn't be to wish old people would die sooner, otherwise we're eventually going to end up with a Logan's Run situation. Mentioning Logan's Run is apropos, because over-population is going to be the biggest problem of tomorrow. Even if we all died at 60 (yes, I know it was 30 in the movie), the NHS would still struggle simply because of the sheer volume of people (regardless of their age) making demands on its services.

As a society, we should perhaps be thinking along the lines of having kids later in life if we're going to live longer. The hard fact is, the population is going to need managing at some point, otherwise there'll be all sorts of problems - feeding people, housing them, etc. (To an even greater extent than we do now.) That's probably why wars were invented - to cull the population when it strayed beyond a certain number. No, that's not a serious thought, but one never knows, eh? Governments of countries colluding in order to reduce their populations to more manageable levels.

Incidentally, Andrea Leadson was talking b*ll*cks. We've all got a stake in the future - even if it's only our own.

Mark Carter said...

I wonder what the population would be if we hadn't had two world wars and the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918. Perhaps we need a Captain Trips man-made outbreak a la Stephen King's "The Stand" if we REALLY want to get the population down.

Kid said...

It's more a case of NEEDING to get the population down, MC - worldwide.

Mark Carter said...

But, as you say, in the absence of a "Logan's Run" type of euthanasia (in the novel, at age 21 you'd had your lot), HOW do we reduce the population? Perhaps the Pope could make a start by recommending that all Catholics start using contraception?

Kid said...

I only know that unless we want to end up with cities like Mega-City One, we NEED to gradually lower the worldwide population. How we do that, or even convince people that it's necessary, is not something I can supply a solution for, I'm afraid. However, not having a fire extinguisher shouldn't prevent someone from crying 'FIRE!' - as long as there is one of course.

Colin Jones said...

The problem of overpopulation will probably be solved by climate change leading to widespread famine and mass starvation in the developing world. But in the western world the huge problem is the ageing population in coming decades - that's why mass immigration will continue despite Brexit. I've read that the government's economic growth plan till 2020 depends on an extra 1.1 million immigrants by then. And Germany needs an extra 2 million workers by 2030. But didn't Martin Amis suggest there should be "suicide booths" for old people ? I think he meant they should do their patriotic bit to help the country.

Kid said...

I think there's something wrong with the world when old people in particular are seen as a 'problem'. Remember, all those forecasts are based on large populations, but smaller populations would require less resources to sustain them. That's why we should try and decrease the general population by natural means. And if the amount of old people is increasing, CJ, then immigrants are likely to contain older people too. I've seen an increase in older foreign beggars and buskers in Glasgow. Given the amount of unemployment in this country, we don't so much need immigration as to make sh*t jobs pay more - then indigenous people would perhaps be prepared to do them.

Colin Jones said...

But how do we decrease the general population by natural means ? Perhaps if we abolished child benefit it might discourage people here in the UK, but people still had babies before child benefit so perhaps it wouldn't make any difference. But in the rest of the world the population is exploding - and China has now scrapped its' one child policy. I'm pretty sure the world population will eventually be drastically reduced by mass starvation due to climate change as I mentioned earlier.

Kid said...

China hasn't so much 'scrapped' its one child policy as 'revised' it, CJ. However, I believe parents need to get permission to have a 2nd child, and that it's only given in certain circumstances. How do we reduce the population? Don't have a solution, I'm afraid, but discouraging young people from having babies would be a good start. People seem to be becoming parents at a far younger age these days. I wonder who looks after their kids while the parents are at school?

That's what amazes me about you, CJ. You always seem pretty sure about a lot of things that nobody can be really sure about.

Parent said...

It's very easy for those of you without children to talk about how people should have less children. You've never known the joy of having kids so your opinion means nothing.

Kid said...

I really shouldn't print a comment from an idiot, but I'll make an exception in your case. I've never known the 'joy' (as they see it) of blowing up innocent people in a terrorist attack either, but I reckon I'm still entitled to my opinion that there are way too many of the buggahs (and that they're all b*st*rds)! I've never known the joy of winning the Lottery jackpot, but I'd say I'm entitled to my opinion that it would be life-changing. Over-population threatens the quality of life for everyone, children included, so it would be better if we could keep it within manageable levels. I think that's simply common sense, and one doesn't need to be a parent to have an opinion on the subject. In fact, my experience of most parents is that common sense is often a stranger to them. Don't bother replying, you've shot your last bolt.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...