The reality is that most businesses here now are on thin ice as the return on Investements/ risk is fast becoming not worthwhile.

If you take a fruit shop or butcher shop for example, most today still often have to sell their products at prices they were getting ten years ago, with one factor being the ever constant, ruthless push by the major retailers who, under successive govermentS competition policy, have been allowed to grow and prosper literally unchecked.

Same applies for large businesses trying to compete with cheap imports, resulting in cheaper products offered by major retailers.

The other problem is that too many consumers chase the cheapest price possible on necessities.

Now while many do this out of neccecity, others think nothing of paying $45 per liter for milk, in the form of a coffee from the local shop.

We are our own worst enimies and we are now seeing the results of our actions.

Thinking we can save industries by simply injecting funds is laughable.

Valid points, Pericles.
I would certainly agree that for the gumment to hand over dough to CCA would be a suckers game.
The question is, should the Gov offer support -perhaps low interest/no interest loans for the existing management and workers to buy out CCA? Given of course a realistic business plan and sound constitution.
I strongly believe the answer to both greedy unions and greedy executives is the democratic framework, and Mondragon offers a tried and proven template, which could also be applied to certain car manufacturers and an airline.

If people can't differentiate between profit & anticipated profit than we might as well chuck it all in now. If there is a profit then there's no need to get worried. If that profit is not as much as they'd have hoped than that's just stiff. pay yourselves less & the profits will go up.

I should have said pay yourselves what you're worth & the profits will increase.

Indi, what do you consider is a fair salary for a company CEO such as SPC.

When thinking of that, keep in mind just how many workers they have to control, then, compare them to say Hugh Jackman, a man who earns about sixty million for making just one three month movie.

It funny how so many people dispize the pay of a CEO, yet think nothing of a movie stars earnings.

Just curious!

If there were a genuine socialising component in the Australian economy we might have institutions like a people's bank, like the original idea of the Commonwealth Bank, that could evaluate proposals like this - in a rigorous way - and potentially make investment loans of this sort.

The thing is that the whole economic structure seems largely organised on capitalist lines. So there are few socialist structures which might facilitate this sort of thing.

I agree with the writer's general line that socialism needs to be rethought. Its like anything its experimented with and its weaknesses need to be revealed and learned from. I would not want to see a repeat of the Stalinist type model of a command economy with a centralised decision making model and bureaucracy. Mind you when I was in university that was regarded as "state monopoly capitalism".

But I find the capitalist model that increasingly channels most of the wealth and power into the hands of the 1% leaving the 80% with a trickled-down 20% unattractive too.

This is just a comment. I don't think of myself as economically literate enough to argue with economists. But I do know that there are trained economists on the more socialist side of the debate.