Well at least there is some honesty about the intentions of corporations. They bring together capital and labour and deliver
consumer products and services in the process. Some honesty
is required, if their products are duds, they can be charged
for misleading consumers about their products or services.

Now the real money is in starting a new religion! You promise
nothing but hope, you never have to deliver to show that
your product is genuine, people become emotionally attatched
to your product and send in mega millions every week!

Note the big bucks involved in the so called US bible belt,
the Bakers and many others etc. Religion is a hugely profitable
business, only free from consumer laws of having to show that
your product actually is what it claims to be.

The Singsong Church in Sydney has a mega million budget. Where
does all the money go? Mother Theresa received huuuge amounts
of money. Where did all the money go?

If corporations were as accountable as many religious institutions,
their leaders would no doubt be in jail by now.

"if their products are duds, they can be charged
for misleading consumers about their products or services

That is the most sickening thing on this thread to date.

You can't charge rogue and corrupt corporations. Not if they are the only game in town.
Let's see you charge MacAirports for stuffing up Kingsford Smith for example .. or for stuffing up Sydney streets when they overdevelop airport precincts.

Yabby can't find MONOPOLY in the dictionary it seems. Monopoly means they do what they want when they want and F to U.

Nor did he read my post about Sartor, Iemma and Howard actively aiding and abetting selected monopolies they feel suit their purpose in DICTATING to the will of the Australian people without fear of any real electoral scrutiny.

"You can't charge rogue and corrupt corporations."

You most certainly can! If they make a claim about their
products, for which they have no evidence, you can sue
them. Try going down the street and promoting snakeoil
as a cure for cancer and see how long you last lol.
Consumer protection will be onto you like a flash.

Sure corporations would like a monopoly. Its a license
to print money after all. If politicians provide them
with a license to print money, then its a political
problem, not a corporate problem.

If politicians provide corporations with monopolies, then they should be accountable for their
actions to you, the voter. If you still vote for them,
well, thats up to you. Don't come crying.

When was the last time a politician was accountable for their actions?

There's no point voting for anyone else because they're all the same.

Don't you remember Little Johnny coming to power on the promise of being open and accountable - because Labor wasn't. That went out the window quick smart.

If a Labor government was elected, they would be exactly the same, except their mates would get the benefit.

KAEP “Monopoly”
Look up “ACCC” in macquarie
Look up “Federal Trade Commission” in Webster's
Look up "Competition Commission" nee "Monopolies and Mergers Commission" in the Oxford English.

Each of the above organisations is chartered to investigate and prosecute monopoly and anti-competitive activity and if the US funeral industry or the Australian pre-mix cement industry is anything to go by, they certainly succeed. Microsoft seems to be a “tough nut” but the FTC has not given up yet.

I would note under the western economic model, competition is, generally, applauded and encouraged.

I would note the biggest “monopolies” have always been those which were government owned, Telstra and power utilities springing to mind.

I would note that under the "socialist" model of decades past; the entire state was one big “monopoly”, corruption was rife, “productivity” abysmal, the “police state” in full force and the resultant “Quality of Life” of the poor souls who had to suffer “central committee ownership of everything” enough for them to do everything to escape to “capitalism”.

Yabby, I think we are tackling the same problem from alternative ends.

Tao “politicians held accountable” – darn it – and that’s what I thought elections were about.

Where the public gets to hold their representative accountable by voting for them or not.

Of course the difference is – only “party members” would get to vote under your system, the rest of us would just “suffer” – but “suffering” does not fit into my chosen lifestyle.

Col,

So, you must have got your seeing-eye-dog to look that crap up then?

In the real world, Col ..........

I know what's going on and so do a lot of other interested parties.

To assume Howard was just clumsy in approving the Snowy sale in its original form is a little naive. Howard has SHOWN he approves monopolies and will sneak them in wherever he feels people are not watching.

To assume Frank Sartor has grabbed development controls for Sydney Brewery to make Sydney a better place to live is naive. To assume the developer is not a Labor Party backer and has a guaranteed MONOPOLY over the site is naive. To assume that Freedom of information on their liaisons is not protected qualifies you for blindness concessions.