According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook database the country with the fastest rate of real GDP growth over the past 15 years is Equatorial Guinea (based on oil discoveries) but I assume 'Pericles' is referring to China, which ranks second. China is of course an authoritarian dictatorship, but, even so, part of its growth strategy has been to allow greater competition both from within (so that for example the share of urban employment accounted for by State Owned Enterprises has fallen from over 70% in the second half of the 1980s to 25% in 2004) and without (China's average tariffs have fallen from 32% in 1992 to 6% in 2004). Obviously that's not the only - or even necessarily the most important - reason for China's rapid growth, but it has been part of it.

The same is true of Ireland, which has enjoyed the fastest growth rate of any 'Western' economy over this period.

The fact that I am in favour (in most circumstances) of more competition rather than less does not mean that I am against government intervention at all times and in all places, whether it be to promote economic development or to alter the distribution of income (see, on that latter point, my speech on 'Poverty in Tasmania' on my website, www.anz.com/go/economics under 'State Economic Focus'). And, as in Ireland, I'm a supporter of increased government support for education, particularly in the Tasmanian context. I strongly support government action to curb abuses of monopoly power (as this article sought to make clear).

But I am against intervention designed to protect existing businesses from competition where there is no benefit to consumers, whatever form it takes (tariffs, restrictions on trading hours, etc.). And I'm also opposed to governments transferring public monopolies into private hands.

If 'Pericles' thought my article said 'absolutely nothing that is new, contentious, controversial or even particularly interesting', then why didn't he simply say that, rather than calling me a 'fat capitalist stooge'?

And Peter Costello, for one, would be amused, I think, to learn that I was being accused of 'government brown-nosing'!

Hi Saul,
Thanks for concurring I am trying to stick to factual argument here.
Another One of the points I am trying to allude to here is
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Regardless of the efforts of Graham Samuels and his office supported by a multitude of corporate governance rules, the bigger the Corporation that more likely they are to break the rules under the belief
a) They will use the political favours they have gained via party donations to get them out of trouble
b) They have vast legal resources at call to tackle any challenges.
The only thing Corporations fear is bad publicity and they control the media via multi Billion dollar advertising budgets. Coles Myers was fined $5,000,000 for Market abuse, Woolworth are known in the trade as “Woollies the Bullies”..
The ACCC web site infers they will prosecute anyone who engages in anti competitive behaviour even if it’s a nod and wink conversation at the local pub. But there was an article written in an Australian Trade E-Zine dcnews.com.au “HARVEY NORMANS TOUGH TERMS” that laid out in detail names and conversations of how HN dictates to the market place including one example where a computer company decided open their own direct to customer sales outlet. When HN heard about the outlet all of that brand computer was immediately de-ranged from HN stores until the computer company promised not to open a direct outlet.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but the ACCC felt there wasn’t enough had evidence to prosecute? No wonder small businesses are calling out for help from NCP!
The NCP has created a market of Corporate Bullies under the guise of free market.
The ACCC is too quick to dismiss corporate bullying as competition just as once teachers used to dismiss schoolyard bullying as acceptable behaviour, for the same reason people fear retribution from bullies no one wants to dob in the corporate bullies.
How about fair market before free market?

I heard a visiting English academic, bought out to Australia to audit the efficiency of Australian universities, remark at the end of his visit, that Australia had so much competition in the university sector that it was counterproductive. He had come across examples of academics fighting each other for funds rather than devote their energies to improving knowledge.

>>but I assume 'Pericles' is referring to China<<

Perhaps, but the example of Equatorial Guinea is perfect. You find some oil, you let the ruling families run riot and voila! A booming economy that benefits only a few of the country's elite. So much for measuring “public good” against a growth index. I assume we can now dispense with the OECD reference, since its yardstick is clearly meaningless on its own.

As for Ireland – another great example. When Ireland joined the EEC (as it was then known) they flooded the place with “development” cash, to the tune of 4% of GDP between 1973 and 1986. The government took advantage of this to attract foreign direct investment through low corporate tax rates and created dozens of new industries, mostly in high-tech. Does this ring any bells in Australia? I thought not.

So the examples you use are only vaguely related – second cousin at most – to competition.

>>The fact that I am in favour (in most circumstances) of more competition rather than less does not mean that I am against government intervention at all times and in all places <<

>>But I am against intervention designed to protect existing businesses from competition where there is no benefit to consumers, whatever form it takes (tariffs, restrictions on trading hours, etc.). And I'm also opposed to governments transferring public monopolies into private hands. <<

On re-reading your article in the light of these later observations, I can only admire the way you have covered each and every angle, so that it is impossible to argue any single point with you. At least one sentence you wrote protects you from contradiction.

I go back to my original point, which is when in doubt, look to the ulterior motive. If there isn't one, I apologize, but it simply leaves me with the question – why bother? What is your point?

Anyway, I said “fat-cat”, not “fat”, referring to your economic standing, not your corporation.

Saul I take it we are agreed on the principal that no Individual or Corporation is above the law or has the right to enchourage people to break the law?
Further to my argument that NCP is used by Corporate Bullies advance their control of the Market.
Quote from the WA Department of Consumer and Employment Protection
“Harvey Norman stores fined - 71 guilty of Retail Trading Hours Act offences
71 Harvey Norman defendants from across Western Australia were today prosecuted and fined in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions for opening on Sunday 22nd June 2003 in contravention to the law.
Magistrate Paul Nicholls imposed fines totalling $310,500 against the companies and directors of Harvey Norman stores across Western Australia that breached the Retail Trading Hours Act last year.
This comes in the wake of two Harvey Norman stores and their directors receiving fines of $15,000 in October last year for the same offence.
“I am very pleased that the Court in sentencing recognised the seriousness of illegal trading giving unfair advantage over those traders who operate within the law”, Consumer Protection Commissioner Patrick Walker said.”
This dovetails with the Harvey Norman Store in MtGambier South Australia who decided to force the issue of deregulated trading hours by illegally opening on Sundays with the backing of Gerry Harvey, Harvey Norman chairman.
Clearly this is a case of a Corporate Chairman openly encouraging people to break the law using the umbrella of NCP as justification!
Further to the Corporate Bullying argument (quoting from Professor Fels when he stepped down as ACCC Commissioner responding to Gerry Harvey’s labelling the departing professor a "smiling assassin" who had inflicted "irreparable harm to the Australian economy”)
"This is just an attempt to put some pressure on us, or an old-fashioned attempt to bully the ACCC,"

Given the above is only a small sample Saul, should we be supporting / rewarding corporate bullies who break the law using NCP as an excuse to quote “giving unfair advantage over those traders who operate within the law “ with total trading hours deregulation?

'Trev', I don't advocate or condone the breaking of the law. When people break the law, the community is entitled to expect that those people will, if found guilty, be penalized as prescribed by law.

That said, history is replete with examples of unjust, unconscionable or just plain bad laws. And there are occasions when the judgement of history has been that those who have been willing to break such laws, and to incur penalties for so doing, have nonetheless done their communities a service. They may have been legally wrong, but morally right; and their actions vindicated by subsequent changes in the law.

Were those who refused to pay 'taxation without representation' morally wrong? Was Rosa Parks morally wrong in disobeying laws requiring blacks to give up their seats to whites in America's south in the 1950s? Were those who were jailed for refusing to register for National Service during the Vietnam War morally wrong? Was Frank Penhalluriack, proprietor of a hardware store in Melbourne who in the mid-1980s was fined $500,000 for repeatedly opening his store on Saturday afternoons or Sundays in breach of laws criminalizing such actions, morally wrong?

In each case, the laws which these people broke were subsequently changed. They were changed because a majority of people, or a majority of those elected by the people to govern them, came to see that it was the laws which were wrong, not the people who broke them.

Although I would not elevate laws relating to retail trading hours to the same plane as (for example) laws discriminating against people on racial grounds, I believe that it is wrong for governments to make it a criminal offence for consenting adults to engage in retail transactions purely because of the time of day or of the week at which they do so.

And so, while I don't condone the deliberate flouting of the law, nor do I necessarily condemn those who in good faith are seeking to change bad laws by bringing to public attention the injustice inherent in penalizing people for breaking bad laws.