No Worries Trev, I see better where you are coming from now.

I just could not see why you were disagreeing with Saul because the tone of his article seemed to suggest in fact you were on the same side, i.e. of avoiding social dislocation and resentment which comes with unfettered allowing of just market forces to dictate policy.

You have my total support for what you put in your last post.. about some social justice over and above the jackboot of the Competition Commission....

Cheers

Hi David
Under the BOAZ-SHONGA Federal Government model of balanced capitalism and social responsibility
Would Trev Average small businessman have the same access to your ministers as say the list below who have made substantial donations (sponsorship) to the governing political party?
The Free Enterprise Foundation $265,000.00 (a Liberal Party Trust Company linked to Westfield Earnings)
Croissy Pty Limited $200,000.00 (Westfield Shopping Centres Charged with Unconscionable conduct and the intimidation of small business by the ACCC)
Kingold Group Companies Ltd $200,000.00 (Chinese Property Investment Company)
Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd $200,000.00
ANZ Bank $150,000.00
Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd $100,000.00 (Billionaire Harry Trigaboff)
Ramsay Health Care $100,000.00
(ACCC decided not to oppose Healthscope Limited's proposed acquisition of 14 hospitals from Ramsay Health Care)
Westpac Banking Corporation $85,000.00
National Australia Bank $84,520.91
Coles Myer Ltd $75,000.00 (ACCC took Coles / Liquorland to court $5,000,000 for anti-competitive conduct).
Gerard Industries $100,000 (Rob Gerard ex-RBA Board Member with the $50,000,000 Caribbean Tax Haven)
(NB It was surreal to watch Rob at a John Howard pre-election lunch jump up and shout bravo while all the accountants around me were stony faced at the figures Prime Minster Howard was quoting. Then after Mr Howard’s comments on the need for world peace and cooperation they played they played the sponsors video on a new gun that could kill hundreds of people in less than a second.)

David! Under your model would you feel your Government had been compromised if your party had accepted these donations knowing your government was going to make decisions / pass legislation that would seriously effect the profitability of the donator?
Would you consider the game FAIR competition if the umpires were sponsored by the opposition?
Rhian! Given this is the Current System do you concur that while the theory of NCP may be well and good, in reality it is been used as a vehicle by a select group to expand their market control using “Animal Farm” propaganda

Post Script to my last post I note in the SMH today billionaire Richard Pratt's Visy Industries is rumored to be part of a major ACCC investigation into anti-competitive behavior, I assume this would be the Pratt Holdings who donated $200,000 to the Liberal Party. One would think it hypocritical of the Liberal Party to be actively pushing NCC free market policy while large number of their major Sponsers are guilty of serious anti-competitive behavior.
Source Notes – Donations for 2004 are on the AEC.gov.au web site, ACCC Actions are on the ACCC.gov.au web site, NCC Policy is NCC.gov.au

Trev,

I'd agree that businesses small and large use whatever (usually) legal means are available to them in the pursuit of profit. Here in WA the same supermarket franchise which supported an emotive and dishonest campaign against deregulated shopping hours in February has recently run a campaign calling for deregulation of potato marketing (another anachronistic piece of anti-competitive legislation in WA). One set of regulations boost their profits, the other doesn’t.

At the same time, the supermarket chains that call for deregulated liquor trading regulation don't hesitate to oppose their competitors' applications for new licenses as a matter of course. No business lets hypocrisy get in the way of profit, which is why we need strong competition laws and independent regulators such as the NCC and ACCC, to look after consumers’ interests.

Those who've posted critical comments on this article might want to ponder the following comments today by Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan MP: "Supported by the right policies, competition is not the enemy of equity. Competition can open up opportunities for workers and business alike ... Striking the right balance in competition policy may mean strengthening regulation to restrain anti-competitive behaviour in particular markets that could stifle innovation and stop better and cheaper products reaching consumers. On the other hand, striking the right balance might mean removing unnecessary regulation to free up competitive forces and strengthen price signals so that investment is encouraged and innovation is rewarded".

Mr Swan is exactly right, and he's saying (in his own words) exactly what I did.

Some posters (thank you 'Rhiann', 'Boaz_David' and 'Shonga') noticed that I began and ended by article by making the point that competition was not an end in itself, but rather was to be encouraged and welcomed to the extent that it benefited consumers - and was not to be discouraged solely because it might disadvantage existing businesses (who do not have any 'right' to a guaranteed profitable existence). Others appear to have missed or ignored that point, or simply not read the article at all before launching the usual tired old cliches about economists.

To 'Pericles' and 'The Alchemist', I can't be bothered responding to personal insults, especially when hurled from behind the veil of pusillanimous anonymity. I simply see them as evidence of an inability or unwillingness to marshall a coherent argument - which 'Trev', profoundly as I disagree with him, has at least tried to do.

'Alchemist', whoever he or she is, is simply wrong both about the scope of my new role at the Tasmanian Arts Advisory Board and the intentions which I bring to it, and he will be proven wrong by the passage of time. Whether he or she is then willing to admit that he or she is been wrong will be a test of his or her personal integrity.

'Faustino', thanks for your support, I will consider any such invitations.

>>Mr Swan is exactly right, and he's saying (in his own words) exactly what I did.<<

Well now, you are hardly going to disagree with someone who is agreeing with you, are you?

But back to the point. If you were honest, you would look over your article again, and notice the following.

At the start, you shimmy around the pro- and anti-competition arguments, presumably to establish that you are being "balanced". "...competition is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end", followed closely by quoting (approvingly? disapprovingly?) Adam Smith “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices”

Then another qwik qwote, this time from the OECD “the link between product market competition and productivity growth is positive and robust”.

From that point on, it is all post hoc, ergo propter hoc conclusions that this is absolutely the case for Australia too, so jolly well stop complaining you wimpy lefties.

A sanity check please. Which world economy has grown the fastest over the past fifteen years? And was the regime that created this growth environment i) rabidly pro-market, ii) extremely in favour of red-in-tooth-and-claw competition and iii) scrupulously hands-off in its treatment of companies, shareholders and workers alike?

To attribute Australia's prosperity to "competition" is to gloss over the myriad of sharp anti-competitive practices that appear daily. It like consoling a rape victim by telling her "just think where civilization would be without the male sex drive".

So you can take my "insults" as commentary on an article that said absolutely nothing that is new, contentious, controversial or even particularly interesting, but instead came across as just a bit of pro-government brown-nosing.