TurnRightThenLeft, a true monopoly is the government, the only entity that can use force or the threat of force to accomplish its goals. Other monopolies are those that have been given the privilege by the government. Show me a monopoly that exists other than these cases. That's right, none exist.

Country Gal, surely you understand that 'the basics' could range from a dodgy old used car all the way up to a Mercedes right? Since when have people been paid what they need anyway? It's up to each person to look after their self-interests. Believe it or not this is the fastest way to create wealth, which is necessary to lift poor people out of poverty. Were it not for socialist/interventionist policies, I severely doubt that the poor would even exist as an identifiable class, the only 'poor people' would be people who choose to be poor.

Regardless of this, you still believe in price setting while at the same time, claiming to support the free market. These are contradictory beliefs, setting a price floor serves to distort the markets.

Not only this, you seem to think that our corporations shouldn't have a say in how their own money is spent, who's to say they mightn't just look elsewhere if the price was raised? Would you be happy if the government forcefully took your money and told you you had to spend it in a certain place(where you saw a cheaper alternative)? No! So why do you advocate it for a corporation? I dunno, maybe because it's not your money.

As for the efficiency of Australian farming, I'm sure we could argue all day about how good/bad/green it is. So I say let the market decide because actions speak louder than words.

Volition:

Microsoft is a prime example of a monopoly.
This is one of the prime reasons why apple's revenue is now primarily generated via devices other than computers, such as the ipod.

Duopolies are plentiful. Witness Coles and Woolworths.

"Since when have people been paid what they need anyway? It's up to each person to look after their self-interests. Believe it or not this is the fastest way to create wealth, which is necessary to lift poor people out of poverty. Were it not for socialist/interventionist policies, I severely doubt that the poor would even exist as an identifiable class, the only 'poor people' would be people who choose to be poor."

If this was the case, then why is it that wealth has been accumulating into fewer hands in recent years?

If this tendency to accumulate wealth into fewer hands is to continue, then surely, in the event of limited resources, the poor will eventually miss out, there is no other conclusion.

"So I say let the market decide because actions speak louder than words."

Your problem there for farmers Volition, is that the market cannot
decide, due to politics, where we are the minority, so get outvoted.

Lets look at drought. The best thing for farmers to do, when the
writing is on the wall as to the season, is to quit stock as
fast as possible. That should not be a problem. Fly in some
meatworkers from say China, run an extra shift in plants etc,
the result would be a win-win for all. But city politics prevents
that happening. So there is less kill space then there are livestock,
prices collapse, farmers try to hang on because of
collapsing prices, next you have starving stock in paddocks.
Next thing you city people dish out drought aid, to deal with
the starving stock.

The problem with farming is that city people want the good bits
from us, cheap and clean food etc, but politics and their numbers
prevent us from being ultra efficient. Yet most of what we sell
is on global markets. So the market won't decide much, politics
will dominate, which is the problem.

Volition “'cut down firms who have gotten too much better than other ones',

You posting seem to quote that statement and ascribe it to one of my posts. Please review your source. I wrote no such thing.

As for “these firms should have the freedom to merge and takeover as they wish.”

Not when their market dominance is such that their effect on trade is a hindrance to trade. A few firms dominating a market from both the supply and demand (as an intermediary step in the supply chain) is against the interest of free trade. Maybe you could justify the typical activities of monopolies, duopolies and cartels which seek to sustain their business with unfair price fixing and preventing new competitors entering a market”.

I know, personally, the US FTC took extensive action against the funeral industry to stop inappropriate cartel activities by funeral directors who were tripling the price of funerals, at will and operating on fixed price schedules in collusion with other funeral directors. The families of the dead were seriously disadvantaged by such practices. Sticking the departed in a shopping bag and dropping them down a rubbish shute is not a viable alternative.

Microsoft’s position of power in the delivery of applications software is largely due to the refusal of Microsoft to release the source code for their operating system, thereby awarding themselves a significant commercial advantage in delivering applications which work across operating systems with other applications.

Microsoft would see the applications software separated from the operating system and run as separate businesses. Alternatives are slowly emerging, Linux, Open Source, Java etc. despite Microsoft. In the meantime, users are forced to accept Microsoft dominance of their PC and the inferior performance of some Microsoft applications because they have limited choice of new products.

The parallel with Telstra is, Telstra “retail” and versus “wholesale network operator” naturally conspires to limit the activities of competition by disadvantaging alternative retail suppliers with aggressive wholesale pricing. The solution, separate the wholesale telephone network supplier from the retail supplier like separating Microsoft operating system Microsoft applications.

Its about market "Balance"

Invest in Woolworth/Safeway. That way when times are lean at your end they support you until the market improves and when the market is doing well it's money in the bank.
Develop a relationship of mutual necessity.

aqvarivs, I know a number of farmers that have done just that. Try to ride on both sides.

Volition, I am not advocating price fixing (although I can see why you might interpret my posts that way). I lived through the removal of the floor price for wool. Not much fun. What I am trying to highlight is that I believe that we have a responsibility to the environment and to all people in the supply chain, to support certain standards, no matter where we source our products from. As Yabby points out, if we were to fly in cheap labour from os to ensure efficient use of available resources, there would be all sorts of outcrys.

As for the govt taking my money and telling me where to spend it - they do. Roughly half my income goes in tax. I have to spend it on all sorts of things I dont think necessary. Given that the corporations pay 20 percentage points less tax than me, I've got problems with them having to deal with a bit more regulation.