I thought the article started off brilliantly, substituting the word "competition" where Gordon Gecko used "greed". That pretty well sums up the situation.

Competition is without doubt an improvement over its opposite in the same way that democracy is an improvement over the totalitarian state. Unfortunately actions are taken under the banner of competition that are essentially anti-competitive, in the same way that we experience government actions under the banner of democracy that are decidedly anti-democratic.

So whenever I see a presentation such as this, my hackles rise, and my bulldust-detectors go on high alert. What is the agenda here? Why are we being told the obvious? What is the purpose of spreading this kind of soma, at this point in history.

Unfortunately, there is a rise in the number of anti-competitive activities in the marketplace, and it is the result of government action that is careless at best, and possibly even corrupt. Toll roads. Airport services. Sydney's airport rail link. And of course (thank you for pointing it out Boaz) the cosy cartel of the Banking system.

So I'm sorry Mr Eslake, but this brands you as just another fat-cat capitalist stooge, singing for his supper. Or in your case, super.

TREV

am I missing something here, or did you not read my post, or Sauls quote of Graham Samuels saying:

<< “a society that relies purely on market forces to distribute the benefits of change will inevitably sow the seeds for polarisation and resentment. Ultimately, this feeds into social dislocation and political instability”.>>

... which seems to be exactly what YOU are saying..so why are u fighting with Saul Eslake ?

One poster made the very crucial remark about 'selectivity' in our appproach to controlling market forces.

We must avoid at all costs an 'all or nothing' approach to deciding the elements of our economic future. Malaysia went against the grain when the economic crisis hit Asia, and pegged the Ringgit to the US dollar at a specific rate whereas all the others (I think) floated them, and then 'free fell'.

Who would think there was an 'Asian meltdown' if they arrived at KL international airport today, and went by 'their' fast train to the heart of the city (do WE have any such infrastructure ?)

So, competition must be 'fair' and for it to be 'fair' it must be based on wage parity. We here the mantra often "We cannot compete with China's wage levels so we must go 'hi-tech'/value added etc.

But what do we find in the real world ? China is ALSO becoming increasingly high tech and value added ! The same people telling us we have no manufacturing future in Australia, are ALSO those who are outsourcing the jobs of

-Customer service
-Sales
-Technical Support
-Back office functions (Invoicing etc)
-Software development
-IT professions

to other countries.

Unions only bleat about 'employee entitlements' each time another 400 workers are made redundant because of the above.

We are heading back to the days of living off the sheeps/cattles back, and a few holes in the ground where resources used to be.

A new approach to politics, outside of 'right/left' is needed and no, I don't mean a theocracy, but I DO mean a society based on a balance of capitalism and social responsibility,

David, You and I can finally agree on something, COMPLETELY. This is exactly what I have been trying to say all along, but unfortunately, couldn't find the words. This is exactly what this country needs, I don't have the vocabulary that you do, however I understand perfectly what you are saying, and what Saul is saying, and am in harmony with you both. This may be unusual of your opinion of my values, however this is what I call fairness for all, Regards,Shaun

"Wot he said."

refering to the above

Hi David,
I am trying to argue social responsibility without attracting the wrath of the web master or a deformation case from a National Retailer, but its like nailing jelly to a tree.
For example in the recent WA election the peoples’ referendum voted NO to NPC Policy on Deregulated trading. Clearly it was a decision by the public but the NCC / Federal Treasurer still went ahead with a Permanent NCC Payment deduction of millions of dollars, totally disregarding the “In the Public Interest” test.
To Quote from the NO to Sunday Shopping Web Page
Bob Welch, executive director of the WA Sports Federation, said: "This sends a clear message that West Australians still place a greater value on community-based activities and time for the family unit than convenience for a few and returns for shareholders."
Greg Dean, president of the WA Retail and Small Business Association, which represents 5000 small businesses, described the result as a stunning victory for small business.
"Obviously, the public saw through the multimillion-dollar con by Coles and Woolworths and has protected our lifestyle and economic viability for many years to come," he said.
"We would like to thank the public and particularly our many business partners, the church, sporting and community groups who helped deliver the message."
The Point I am trying to make about NCP is and re-enforced by the quotes from the Senate Committee investigation is that Corporations via their massive PR machines have convinced the government and some of the public that 21st century life should revolve around a Westfield Shopping Centre and to hell with local community, sporting. Volunteering etc.
The WA YES campaign was based entirely on “Your Right to Shop”, and ignored the pleas from community groups who need those people on Sundays to support important community infrastructure.
Thus my anti-NCP movement are not the ravings of a outspoken minority nut but clearly a concern of the SA & WA population.
Anyway Tomorrow’s OAK tree is today’s nut who held its ground

Saul lives in a fantasy land called economics and doesn't know what the real world is. Tasmania is a good place to see how his form of competition works. Because of NCP, the state has been taken over by 3 companies, food, fuel, alcohol and tourism. Competition has resulted in the closure of thousands of businesses and led to the highest prices in the country for food, energy and services. The rest of the state is run by franchise monopolies

Now they have appointed Saul to take charge of Tasmanian art. We can only guess what will happen there. Art economically rationalised and opened to competition. Result, art by Woolworth/Coles, screen printed in Mongolia. Carvings by Gunns, from epoxy enhanced wood pulp made in china. Collages created by Federal hotels consisting of welfare payments put through their pokies.

Saul couldn't run a small business, economists live in ga ga land and can only economise, not manage. As a small/medium business owner of more than 30 years, I have watched Saul and his elite ilk slowly destroy the heart of this country.

In Tasmania there is competition, IGA, (independent grocers association), that compete with woolworths/coles. IGA is 60% owned by Woolworths. Banks, plenty of competition there, just try finding a branch. How many independent newspapers, radio and TV stations are there in Australia. None, all huge monopolies.

I understand Saul that you refuse to see any of this, thats fine, we understand those who will not see, won't. In the near future, you will discover that you can't have an economy without an environment. You and your ilk have destroyed every kind of environment there is. I hope your lesson is bigger than what you have imposed on the populance and the planet. It is people and the planet that matter Saul, not moronic money slaves.

According to your theory's, competition should reduce costs, prices, and increase jobs. Most jobs that are now created are part time. Bet you couldn't survive on a part time wage like most have to.