The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well > Comments

Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well : Comments

By David Flint, published 19/10/2007

Richard Pratt may well have crossed the line. But the line is as artificial as the moral outrage of some in the commentariat.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
David Flint shamelessly argues that criticisms of his mate, industrial conman Richard Pratt, are “no more than manifestations of that tall poppy syndrome which afflicts jaded members of the commentariat”.

Pratt’s shameless crime against all Australians who buy things that need cardboard packaging (that cost $34m) is a mere bagatelle, in Flint’s eyes: “Richard Pratt’s offence seems to be in a vague imprimatur he gave en passant to some sort of understanding about prices proposed to his CEO by their competitor, Amcor.” A crime was never so well perfumed.

For Flint, being caught is just an inconvenience: “So it seems that whenever a major player in Australia chats with his chief executive officer, it would be prudent now to have a sharp lawyer present, however dulling that may be to the conviviality of the occasion.” Pass the sherry, old chap.

According to Flint, in future Pratt and his competitor should not “…make the mistake of sealing their conscious parallelism with even a nod or a wink…” because “It would seem obvious where there is a wafer thin distinction between conscious parallelism and price fixing.” In other words when you plan to rip off your customers do it smarter.

In Flint’s world there may be “a good case that in a concentrated market a price fixing arrangement should only constitute a serious offence where it can be shown that prices are, as a result, significantly higher”. Significantly higher? We note that Flint doesn’t bother to make that "good case" or the case to change the law to allow cartels to rip people off with impunity.

And so Flint returns to his “tall poppy” argument. “Richard Pratt may well have crossed the line between conscious parallelism and proscribed price fixing. The line is as artificial as the moral outrage of some in the commentariat whose aggregated contributions to the nation would not be an infinitesimal proportion of Pratt’s. Such is jealousy.”

Flint’s argument is essentially elitist and amoral - the rich ought to be able to rip off ordinary Australians. How else can they get wealthy? Pardon my moral outrage
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:12:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe that David is serious about his article, he must know that the only regret Richard has over this matter is the fact that he has been caught and Jeannie is publicy humiliated over it.

I admire your deep devotion to your mates David, but Richard didn't play far and now he has to take his medicine.
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:28:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone on Centrelink social security benefits that makes a minor mistake gets hounded to the full extent of the rules and regulations of the law.
The ordinary person who is dishonest at work or embezzles also cops the full extent of the legal process and ends up in jail.
But hey Richard Pratt is a good guy---forgive him.
One rule for the rich and powerful and another for the hoi polloi.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 19 October 2007 10:33:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer to use the term "selective weeding" rather than tall poppy syndrome - far too many people with some standing in the commercial, sporting or social world - confuse their weed like characteristics with those of a poppy - a decorative and noble plant indeed - but if found in the wrong environment it too can be described as a weed.

The tall poppy defence, not patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Persdonally I find most of the views of the commentariat as superflous to the requirements of living - but if they want to brand Pratt a liar and a cheat - and the coursts seem to support their assesment - so be it.

Maybe their artificial outrage, as described by the Flnt, was fueled by the fact that the Pratt would seem to have a fair bit of moolah as it is - and you gotta wonder why he needs to engage in deceit and unlawful conduct in order to get more - and if you say to simply get more was his reason - well,,, Pratt by name I guess
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 19 October 2007 12:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No matter how you look at it, Pratt effectively stole money, albeit in a round-about way.
He didn't steal it from say, a shopkeeper.
He stole it indiscriminately from anybody and everybody who bought his products.

He also did it consciously and deliberately because of simple greed.

His personal millions were not enough for him and he thought he deserved more and his customers deserved less.

How much is enough for these people? At his stage in life he should have been sitting back, counting his blessings and looking for ways to improve the society that allowed him to achieve his success.

Although prison is probably not an option for rehabilitation he will still spend his remaining years in disgrace, for no good reason other than greed and arrogance.

This illustrates how some in society see themselves above the law of the common people.

Are we supposed to be grateful for what Pratt has done for the country? If he didn't make the boxes, somebody else would have. Perhaps just as well, and apparently at a cheaper cost.

Then again I may be too harsh.

Perhaps Martin Bryant should be let off with a harsh written warning. After all, it was only a first offence.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 19 October 2007 2:17:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's get this in perspective. Richard Pratt is facing a fine tipped to be in the order of $35 million, for an offence calculated to have resulted in a windfall for the billionaire of something in the order of $700 million. Petty cash.

And the reaction from people in the know?

ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel called Pratt's offence a "form of theft and little different from classes of corporate crime that already attract criminal sentences".

Terry McCrann (News Limited): "The public Amcor company and the very private Dick Pratt Visy company conspired to rip-off every single Australian. All 21 million of us, year after year. To the tune of some hundreds of millions of very real dollars.

Malcolm Maiden (Fairfax press): "Visy is guilty of stupidity as well as breaches of the law. And the laws that were broken are not inconsequential: cartels are a cancer in the capitalist system, which stands or falls on the concept of fair competition."

A Roy Morgan Poll conducted this week asked 690 ordinary Australians: ''If price fixing were a criminal offence, should Mr Pratt be sent to jail or not?''. 71% said yes.

Meanwhile, the only public figures supporting Pratt are the Prime Minister and David Flint? John Howard: "[Mr Pratt's] been very successful in business and my own dealings with him have always been very positive. And I like him." And Flint: "I once wrote an article on this curious example of American legal casuistry in a French journal of comparative law." I know, I know; with friends like David...

Both are yesterday's men who have long lost their moral compass.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 19 October 2007 3:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fragrant Flint leaps to the defence of the rich and powerful caught ripping off those with no recourse or protection.

No surprises here, then.

Nothing to see, move along.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 October 2007 4:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Flint would jump on the tall poppy syndrome band wagon...

He likes to think of himself as a poppy... Just not sure how tall he ever got...lmao

Flint are you aware of your own irrelevance to Australian society?

Are you the Flint in Flintstones... still putting forward your stoneage ideas?...lmao
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 2:17:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Flint, as far as cutting down tall poppies (or the nicely phrased Selective Weeding)goes, you are safe now and forever. Crikey, mate, you spruik s**t.
Posted by enkew, Saturday, 20 October 2007 7:11:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“a crime was never so well perfumed” FrankGol
“No matter how you look at it, Pratt effectively stole money” Wobbles
“the rich and powerful caught ripping off those with no recourse or protection” Pericles

To the above and also Yindin, Ho Hum and sneekeepete.

Err…..Dare I ask a very inconvenient question. Just how has Richard Pratt in effect stolen or otherwise engaged in any immorality?

Pratt has broken the law (dumb as it is) and thus due process must follow. But apart from being punished for violating article 246 D part vii[b] (or whatever it is) of the Trade Practices Act, can someone tell me what harm he has actually caused to society? To me, all he seems to have done is to put a price on his cardboard boxes, to accept an offer to sell his boxes for that price, and then to sell them. Price collusion or not, where is the harm?

There is no force, fraud, theft, bribery or coercion. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, if you are negotiating the price of your house with an intending buyer, and you settle on a price $10,000 above your bottom figure, you have NOT stolen $10,000 from the buyer.

By the way, conspiracy, collusion or whatever you want to call it, is still no more than two people having a private conversation of over their flat whites. Pease don't tell me that in itself is immoral.
Posted by Edward Carson, Saturday, 20 October 2007 10:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward Carson asks: "what harm has [Pratt] actually caused to society?" Or "Just how has Richard Pratt in effect stolen or otherwise engaged in any immorality?" Or "...all he seems to have done is to put a price on his cardboard boxes, to accept an offer to sell his boxes for that price, and then to sell them. Price collusion or not, where is the harm?"

The harm is that virtually everyone in Australia has been defrauded into paying a higher price for boxes than the legal working of the market should have required. The further effect is unnecessarily to increase the prices of the goods in those boxes.

No fraud, says Edward. If their business strategy was moral, honest and lawful, why did the cartel members meet secretly, using special mobile phones and deploying subterfuge and extreme concealment?

Edward's analogy to selling houses is ludicrous: "if you are negotiating the price of your house with an intending buyer, and you settle on a price $10,000 above your bottom figure, you have NOT stolen $10,000 from the buyer." That may be fair dealing if the housebuyer had access to other houses and other vendors genuinely competing for the buyer's reasonable offer at fair prices. But to extend the analogy, if there are only two people selling houses in Australia and they put their heads together in secret to make sure price are fixed, then buyers are being ripped off. That is not only illegal but also immoral.

Edward, it's not immoral if it is "no more than two people having a private conversation of over their flat whites". But the flat whites were lubricating the conversation about a plot to raise prices and guarantee profits beyond what is reasonable in a fair market.

For a man deemed by Flint and Carson to have done no wrong, Richard Pratt himself seems pretty contrite and anxious quickly to pay the proposed fine (guessed to be in the $30-40m range but yet to be announced). If he's done nothing wrong, you'd expect him to be fighting the charges.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 20 October 2007 1:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Step aside for a moment from the love or hatred of David.

A major point he raises is the wafer thin distinction between conscious parallelism and price fixing.

Qantas and United Airlines are not into price fixing, but they virtually own the cross Pacific airline travel market and they have similar very comfortable and highly profitable prices.

The really big puzzle for me is why Amcor and Visy needed to have a price fixing arrangement. If Amcor had simply thought "let us follow Visy pricing" everything would be legit!

I think the important thing, if we value competition, would be to somehow make it possible for new competitors to enter the supply market.

Fencepost
Posted by Fencepost, Saturday, 20 October 2007 6:53:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go away Flint we can't take anything you say as anything but a joke.
Posted by Kenny, Sunday, 21 October 2007 10:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Check you dictionary Frank. Fraud is defined as an intentionally dishonest act or omission to facilitate a sale.
It is not enough that the bosses of Visy and Amcor had a private conversation. Pratt would have had to imply some dishonesty or withhold some fact to his customers. OK, he didn’t tell them he was fixing a price with Amcor, but so what? How would that have made a difference? The price was still the same price on offer.

An example of actual fraud: You buy a second hand car off a dealer at top price because the salesman told you it just had a new motor installed. You later find out there is no new motor. Why you are a victim is because if you knew the full story you would not have paid so much, or because you got less than what you paid for.

Where is the parallel with Pratt? How would knowing of the price fixing have made a difference? The buyers got what they expected to get at a price they deemed to be worthwhile. The whole concept of fraud is that if you knew the full story you wouldn’t buy at that price.

The cartel members met secretly only because of the #$@?! law.
When the waterside workers get together to discuss putting up the price of their labour, all by the same amount, they don’t meet in secret. They don’t have to, as there is no law against it.

The point with the house I was trying to make is that you and your ohorts seem to imply that with any product there is just some legal selling price. It is that that is ludicrous. Any price is moral as long as no fraud, force, etc., is involved.

Re Confession: as I said at the beginning of my first post, Pratt broke the existing law so there is nothing he can do but fess up and pay. Being morally correct doesn’t protect you from a stupid law. Owning up early and showing “contrition” helps save you millions of dollars.
Posted by Edward Carson, Sunday, 21 October 2007 12:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward

You're becoming more confused with each posting.

Your definition of fraud - "an intentionally dishonest act or omission to facilitate a sale" - is exactly what Pratt did. You have conceded Pratt 'fessed up' and showed "contrition" in order to "save millions". What did he confess to? What is he prepared to be contrite about? Why does Pratt say what he says about his foolishness?

You're rather cute when you claim: "It is not enough that the bosses of Visy and Amcor had a private conversation." There are many more facts than that a private conversation was held - the facts are not in dispute. Visy and Amcor have conceded the facts.

You yourself it would be fraud if Pratt implied: "...some dishonesty or withh[e]ld some fact to his customers." And then you concede: "OK, he didn’t tell them he was fixing a price with Amcor..." Oh?

You go on to ask "so what?" And disingenously, and against all the evidence, claim that the cartel arrangment didn't affect the price. A bizarre claim. Why are Pratt's customers threatening class action? Their lawyers will doubtless take note of your dishonest car dealer analogy "Why you are a victim is because if you knew the full story you would not have paid so much..." Precisely.

Your assertion that: "The whole concept of fraud is that if you knew the full story you wouldn’t buy at that price" is exactly what they will argue against Pratt. Moreover, if Visy and Amcor had not acted illegally, cardboard consumers would have paid a lesser price.

Your claim that it was just simply the law that was faulty is breathtaking. On that basis, let's clear the statute books of all legislation that protects consumers? It's a novel argument. I wonder how many votes Howard and Costello would get running that line? Would the consumers of Australia give them a mandate?

Your conclusion that "Any price is moral as long as no fraud, force, etc., is involved" is reasonable; so why are you incapable of applying your principle to the Pratt case?
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 21 October 2007 1:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward Carson: "...can someone tell me what harm he has actually caused to society? To me, all he seems to have done is to put a price on his cardboard boxes, to accept an offer to sell his boxes for that price, and then to sell them. Price collusion or not, where is the harm?"

The immorality or harm to society can been seen by taking the issue to its extremities. Imagine for a moment that the country only had two farming companies that were the only entities to sell food. Now imagine they got together and decided that people would have to pay their life savings to buy their next loaf of bread. It would cause irreparable harm to society and the economy. Although the overall harm was not as dire as my example would be the principle is still the same. Fair competition is a fundamental requirement for a capitalist economy. Attacks on our economy, through price fixing, need to be treated seriously.

"When the waterside workers get together to discuss putting up the price of their labour, all by the same amount, they don’t meet in secret."

Labour has been, is and always will be a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy. The main reason for this is that people are very different entities to businesses, and to try to treat them the same is just ridiculous.

As for the articles claim: "..little different from the markets in which the newspapers which carried the very personal attacks on Pratt also operate. Except for utopian socialists, there is nothing much to object to about concentrated markets."

The key issue for the concentration of media ownership is not one of economics as it is in the Pratt case, but one of the significant influence the media has on the political sphere and the grave danger to our democracy of one political faction gaining dominating control of it.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 22 October 2007 5:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Labour has been, is and always will be a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy.'
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 22 October 2007 5:23:36 PM
Has it, is it, will it?
Does the same apply, should it apply, to self-employed tradesmen also?
Posted by Admiral von Schneider, Monday, 22 October 2007 6:31:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Flint is raving on about socialists again.
Time for Dr Flint to accept that charging of prices for cardboard boxes to farmers or anyone else is immoral if it is beyond a fair and reasonable price.
It was found to be at least 20% above.

Regards David
Try harder next time to be fair.
PS: how was your expensive lunch today at La Guilottine French resturant? Was it yummy?
Posted by Webby, Monday, 22 October 2007 8:44:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desispis.

“Labour …, is a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy. The main reason for this is that people are very different entities to businesses,”
Who do you think own businesses? Cyborgs? Aren’t shareholders people too?

Re two entities owning all the food producing resources in the WORLD (cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer, poultry, rice, potatoes, wheat, corn, barley, sorghum, fish, crustaceans, rabbits, kangaroos, nuts, berries, etc). Even if this could happen, together with the resulting societal harm, how does this extrapolate backwards?
If perhaps we are justified to use torture to find out where the terrorist planted the ticking bomb, does this justify using torture to find out if the worker has cheated on his income tax?

I am not denying that a trader may well sell his product at a price higher than that at which he would otherwise make a comfortable profit. My point is that this is an aspect of a free society. We are allowed to do anything we wish short of initiating force or fraud. We are allowed to sell our labour or our cardboard boxes (which is only a product of our labour) at any price we wish.
In practice the market keeps all prices low because high profits in any one area generally either invites new players into the field or buyers going into other fields such as shrink-wrapping or the original tea chest boxes made out of two ply. But that is still beside the point. Even if there was no alternative, the concept of ownership (whether your life or your property) means you have the absolute right to deal with it in any way you wish.
The alternative is just basic thuggery. We want that person’s goods or that person’s labour at a price lower than what he is asking. If he objects we will simply ask the government to force him to acquiesce to our demands
Posted by Edward Carson, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 8:54:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward: "Who do you think own businesses? Cyborgs? Aren’t shareholders people too?"

The relationship between a business and its employees, and the business and its owners is completely different.

Shareholders freely invest in any business of their choosing and should accept the risks and costs of doing so. They are free to move their funds between investments and entrust their money with people they believe to have strong business skills to effectively utilise the capital. By the simple fact that they are investing they have sufficient capital to take a hit without facing financial ruin (unless they specific took on that risk).

Employees on the other hand are forced into employment because of their needs. Many employees are limited in their job options based on the skills they have; labour simply don't have the flexibility that capital does. (Non-managerial) Employees typically don't have the business skills or knowledge to effectively run themselves as a 'mini-business' and this shouldn't devalue their output as productive workers.

"My point is that this is an aspect of a free society."

You have a rather simplistic view of 'freedom'. Absolutely everything we do has an effect on others, whether clearly identifiable or not. It's a matter of balancing the freedoms granted against the impact those freedoms have on others. Price fixing harms others' freedom to purchase from a competitive market and harms the economy in general, so like violence it's not a freedom we allow.

"The alternative is just basic thuggery."

You seem to be able to grasp why individuals aren't granted the freedom to use physical force. One main reason is that it causes focus much more on physical force to acquire wealth rather than productivity. We all agree to small limits on freedom that benefits everyone in the long run.

The same reasoning applies to financial situations. Using financial means to unfairly gain wealth causes people to focus these market manipulations rather than producing something of actual value. And again we all agree to small limits on freedom that benefits everyone in the long run.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:07:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a Dean of Law and member of the World Jurist Assn, Prof Flint unequivocally places himself at a crossroads of what is globally considered as unconscionable white-collar crime, and defiantly dismissing per se ACCC's case as ' much ado about nothing '.

For precedence refer to the US Supreme Court prosecution of Enron Jeff Skilling and Board. Largest corporate fraud in US history with ties leading to the White House. He was convicted to 24 years and four to the State penitentiary.

No amount of verbose ' weasel words ' from Flint's Melbourne socialite chum, and leading light of the Toorak squattocracy, ebullient founder Richard Pratt, will save him from the ACCC prosecutuion and the collateral damage to Vissy Industries, not to mention Pratt's as yet impeccable reputation, long term.

Forbes Magazine rates Richard Przecicki - AC, president of Carlton Football Club,leading figure of Melbourne society, thespian ( summer of the 17th doll ) Aust's 3 richest at $4.7 billion.

To accuse journalist Carlton and Allan Ramsey of undermining the cause of justice,colluding to scuttle the ' tall poppy syndrome', and wickedly plotting the destruction of RP out of sheer jealousy is pugnacious gratuitous bullocks.

It's understandable for imminent Academics to vouch for people accused in Court's across the land, for all sorts of reasons. Flint's short tenure with the ABC Authority was nothing short of catastrophic. The ABA 'cash-for-comment' inquiry where shock-jock Allan Jones was overheard to declare he ' instructed' the PM to reappoint Flint in 2001, was instrumental to his demise. Tenaciously, he still insists his resignation was not an admission of guilt. Was this another tall poppy syndrome ?

Irrespective of ACCC's prosecution beginning 21 Dec 2005, of Vissy Board involving Pratt, Debney and Ron Carroll the trial linking Sect 45, and Sect 155: misleading and deceptive conduct, anti-competition, price fixing and market sharing, obstruction and delays, etc they sought surreptitiously to tie-up the Court's indefinitely !

Flint tries to down play the casualties and victims of Vissy's onerous practice by : "whether to impose anything other than a nominal penalty " which the ACCC
Posted by dalma, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for all it's due diligence accuses RP among other frauds, of cheating customers and companies of approximately $ 700 million in the Nation's biggest ever cartel case. Serious contraventions of Law, and Pratt's insidious ' careful and deliberate concealment. The use of pre-paid phones that could not be traced. Clandestine holding of meetings in private homes, motel rooms and suburban parks. Significantly indicates Vissy was fully aware the conduct was illegal. Flint refers to this chapter as ' en passant '? (sic) It was a cold-blooded, deliberate attempt to pervert the cause of justice.

The aftermath: Pratt faces fines to $35 million, which represents the largest fine in Oz history but only an estimated .007.7 % of Pratt's fortune. Insignificant small bickies, when thousands of farmers, business's, retail industries are sent to the wall as the result of his shenanegans at $ 700 M (ACCC figures) A more realistic educated guess over 20 year period would be any where between four to five times that amount. Fined a measly .05 % is nothing short of dispicable. In all consciousness, he should face confiscation or bequeath the 99.95 % to charity.

Pratt is a major political donator. $300,000 in 2003-4. $200,000 in 2005-06 to JWH's Liberal National Party (AEC web site) He received an AO in 1988, and the Companion of the Order in 1998. His wife is also an AC recipient.

Ian Ramsey - Director University of Melbourne's centre of corporate Law compellingly urges the Govt to fast-track the introduction of penalties up to five years jail to bring Aust into line with Global best practice. The prospect of jail would be more effective than fines or damage to reputations.

Consumer watchdog Choice backs amendments to the Trade Practices Act to allow criminal penalties such as a prison term to be included in the Aust Competition & Consumer Commission's arsenal in fighting against cartels. Executives who seriously break the law, just like other criminals. Why should garden variety thieves go to jail but corporate chief's who steal millions from customers go unpunished ?

My sentiments entirely !
Posted by dalma, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 11:58:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desipis

“they have sufficient capital to take a hit”
When we talk about equality and all people being treated the same it’s not just the dumb or the handicapped we’re thinking of. Believe it or not Desipis, it means EVERYONE, and that happens to include the smart and the rich. I am rather surprised by your “all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others” implication.
By the way, check your demographics. Not all investors live in Toorak or Mosman and are wealthy. Also, who do you think are the benefactors of the big superannuation funds currently flooding the financial markets.

“It's a matter of balancing the freedoms granted against the impact those freedoms have on others”
You might balance a freedom against another freedom, but you don’t, at least in an enlightened liberal democracy, balance a freedom of one segment of society against saving another segment’s part of the cost of packaging their slabs of beer.

“Price fixing harms others' freedom to purchase from a competitive market and harms the economy in general”
Give me a break. There’s no freedom to purchase at a lower price. Freedom is a specific concept which should not be diluted by using it in any context. Freedoms are to speak, to travel, to associate, to marry, to follow your own vocation, to procreate, to choose, to consume alcohol etc etc

There’s no harm to the economy (as though that should be a justification to violate rights anyway) when the $10.00 higher price is in the pocket of the seller instead of the buyer. It’s still in the economy to be spent somewhere. Where the economy is harmed is when we waste millions of dollars on the upkeep of the ACCC and various associated court trials. Couldn’t all those bureaucrats be better occupied prosecuting real criminal activities. You know: government bribery, corruption, theft and fraud.
Posted by Edward Carson, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 2:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Edward,

I'm not suggesting that any individual be treated differently, just that different relationships be treated differently. If the government took a hands off approach to the labour market, there would employment that's little more than slavery.

You appear to have little understanding of economics and the necessity for the government to regulate various sections of the economy. You seem to rate one's ability to turn an excessive profit as more important than one's ability to acquire goods or services needed to survive in today's world. How would you feel if all the food growers/producers in the world got together and decided not to sell you food unless you sign you life away. Sure it might seem unfeasible, but when you consider the immense power they would wield it's not worth the risk.

If others could act as Mr Pratt did, he wouldn't have stood a chance in business as the suppliers he relied on to operate would have colluded to sell at a price that deprived Mr Pratt of any opportunity to make a return on his investment. If everyone acted as Mr Pratt did then the entire economy would collapse as investors would realise there was a significant chance of not receiving a return on their investment. If you want the freedom to participate in the economy, you have to follow the rules.

"Freedom is a specific concept which should not be diluted by using it in any context. Freedoms are to speak, to travel, to associate, to marry, to follow your own vocation, to procreate, to choose, to consume alcohol etc etc"

I don't generally disagree with your notion of freedom, however I don't include the freedom to rip people off. Charging above fair market value IS ripping people off, and price fixing leads to prices above market value, thus I don't agree people should have the freedom to price fix.
Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 6:41:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imagine, a handful of big lazy companies, lots of waste, feather bedding, high distribution costs all around the nation, but only 2 or 3% net profit on sales when the annual accounts are in. High cost to consumers, but all perfectly fair and so no complaints.
Imagine, a handful of big intelligent companies who decide to rationalise the manufacture and distribution of goods, so that their factories can work steadily into local markets. Overall prices are cheaper to consumers, but company profits - through this intelligent collusion - are doubled. This is bad.
I am all for competition, but final efficiency is also an important consideration. I am not confident that our regulations and legal mechanisms always work to our benefit. More thinking, less moralising is required in my opinion.
Posted by Fencepost, Thursday, 25 October 2007 7:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I say Carson, old China, pass the snifter will you. And listen up, tight, if you knows what's good fer ya.

Last year I steals a cool $million from tyhe AynZed. What a cracker of a job, really something. They didn't know what hit 'em. Bloody fool of a teller stuck his foot on the snout-bell. Frightened the life outer me.

Anyway, I says to the judge, I says, when he asks me wever I has anything to say before he passes sentence on me, "There’s no harm to the economy when the $1 billion is in me own pocket instead of in the bank." It’s still in the economy," I says, "to be spent somewhere."

Yer know, the frickin' prig wouldn't even listen to me. 'Down yer go, me boy. Yer a menace to society.'

No appreciation of economics and morality, those judges. Now if I was outside I could be makin' a decent contibution to the economy, shiften a bit to the Blueboys and given the wife some playdough for the Hopera.

Come and visit me Carson, ya old bludger. I haven't seen no-one since last April Fools Day.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 25 October 2007 8:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank,
You are a better comedian and master of mimicry than economist or ethicist.
Ditch the day job and do stand up. In time it will pay off and not only will you get outside more often, but in that environment it is quite acceptable to take poetic licence with economic truths.

By the way, Hold-Up Harry wasn’t sent down for five years for being a menace to the economy. It was for straight out larceny, a property menace to other members of society.
The stock market playing cat burglar, who purloins his investment capital from someone who otherwise spends his inheritance on drugs and loose women, probably IS doing something good for the economy, not that that should mitigate his crime.

See you on the Comedy Channel.
Posted by Edward Carson, Friday, 26 October 2007 8:39:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank,

I have to say that made me chuckle a bit. Nicely done.

Edward: "The stock market playing cat burglar, who purloins his investment capital from someone who otherwise spends his inheritance on drugs and loose women, probably IS doing something good for the economy, not that that should mitigate his crime."

Only in this case the investment capital was taken from businesses who were focused on better efficiency or producing a better product. Now instead of being able to invest that capital in ways that help the economy it was siphoned off by the higher prices on cardboard boxes. The colluding group does not need to invest this money in improving their business as their collusion ensures that they will not be under threat from their competitors. Price fixing results in less capital being used to improve the economy, which is why there are laws against it. Just about every sane economist and western government agrees on this issue, it's not that hard to understand.
Posted by Desipis, Friday, 26 October 2007 11:05:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy