Referring back to the original article, I would want anyone to propose an alternative to the arrangement that the author is so critical about. The author listed a number of “problems” but has not offered any practical solutions. The only interpretation of the author’s intention is to regulate the market once again and have prices for daily consumables skyrocketing. The rather blanket and baseless opposition to free trade also makes me uncomfortable. Do some commentators here disagree with the basic tenets of capitalism and return to inefficient modes of trade dominated by artificially created barriers often set by governments? It is a fact that free trade benefit the economy as a whole in general, although there is inevitable wealth redistribution which needs to be cared for in the form of proper transitioning and other social programs.

As with the conflict that the author raised in his questions, in trying to understand WW’s motive in having the charity day, well I do not see a conflict at all. If you accept general capitalism concepts you would have accepted that the bottom line is everyone is generally interested in their own self. I would have interpreted WW’s generosity as a PR stunt for the ultimate aim of a higher profit for shareholders, and higher bonuses for the WW’s management themselves.

Lastly the author asked “how will the issue of profit be determined?”. Answer: Competition.

I always thought the merger of Woolworth:Safeway and Coles:Myers were not in the national interest, simply because of the concentration of buying power and retail selling power into fewer hands.

The decision to allow those mergers, I would remind everyone, were made back in the dark early 1990’s when the amateur team lead the nation.

I am pleased to see Coles:Myer unravel. Unfortunately Woolworth:Safeway is less likely to (it was more a Woolies takeover anyway, most of the Safeway upper echelons management separating shortly after the “merger”).

I would like to see greater competition in retailing and in buying.
Such competition would balance the hold which too few retail chains exercise on the producers and the consumers. That is why we have ACCC.

Farmers have had co-ops for decades but that didn't stop the chains playing one dairy co-op off against the other in the recent dairy deregulation.

But to use dairy as an example, the real curb on competition is posed by government regulation. Under the guise of health regulations, dairymen are prohibited from selling unpasteurised milk directly to customers who actually prefer it. In Qld this went so far as to outlaw the selling of shares in a single cow so the shareholders could take their dividends as raw milk.

In most cases there were no health issues because the buyers were just up the road and obtained their milk fresh each day. But this is the sort of BS that comes with big centralised government.

Big centralised government produces big centralised populations that produce big centralised business monopolies. Yet, we have a competition model that only seems to recognise the economies of scale. It simply does not comprehend the possibility of diseconomies of scale.

And as long as the diseconomies of big government, big cities and big business can be excluded from the cost/benefit analysis then there will be a continuation of concentration.

The big chains can sell cheaper than individual operators because the chains have their rent subsidised by other shops in the mall. They have their social obligations met by the new suburban residents, and they have their broader infrastructure costs met by the wider community. But they are a symptom of a government structural problem and we won't fix one without fixing both. New regional states will not only spread the benefits of competirion but also reduce the diseconomies of scale.

Anyone who believes that Woolworths is helping farmers is sadly mistaken. I used to spend substantial time in managers' offices, picking up cash, with my security company, and overheard what they think of farmers, and their not being worth feeding. They used to tell me, farmers had to be screwed by Woolworths - orders from the top.

Note: They picked a Tuesday - the slowest day of the week.

Slow day = low profit.

Low profit = less to donate.

Donations = plenty of free publicity for Woolworths.

Don't be fooled by multi-nationals.

Woolworths have done their math. They know people will be foolish enough to fall for this stunt.

Woolworths have never given anything away.

I know two email addresses appear on the webpage - obviously the 'Promo Boys'?

But, you send an email through their 'Contact Us' on their site, as it will not permit you send an email unless you can enter the "Store Near You" - which it won't allow you to type in! Very cunning people!!

In my younger and more vulnerable years, I used to work for a Woolies related bottle shop. I was exploited, along with most of the staff at the store.

That year, I met Roger Corbet, who dismissed my concerns out of hand. I guess he had multi-million dollar profits to make. I now refuse to shop at Wollies, or anyu of its affiliates.

The fact that Wollies is serving to undercut farmers should come as no surprise. After all, it is enshrined in law that the company must serve the best interests of its share-holders.

What can be done? I attempt to buy food through farm markets as much as possible, and my parents, who live in a farming area on the NSW mid-north coast, are heavily involved in the local co-op. However, this is only tinkering around the edges. While there are obvious bennefits in "free" markets and competition, such an econonomic model has led to the duopoly we have at the moment. This is a dramatic failure of the "free" market system currently in place.

I fear that some sort of government regulation, perhaps in the percentage of return to food growers for their produce. I'm not sure of the exact course of action to take here, but thanks to this article, I'll start thinking about it.

Hi Allan,
I have just finished reading your article re Woolworths the Farmers Friend.
As a member of the Maleny Public and an active member of the confrontation and continuing boycott I am delighted everytime I see an article exposing Woolworths in its true colors. Pity the ladies of the CWA cant see it also, I suspect it is a function of age as much as anything else (ment with kindness).

As I read the article and noted your comments about Rodgers devotion to chrisitanity I wondered if there might be a possiblity of building on this point and targeting a few of the Archbishops and questioning their tolerance of corporate behaviour and perhaps aligning this with the previous sex and pedophile behaviours which where swept under the carpet at the same time.

How different is their acceptance of the behaviour of a significant memeber of the flock using corporate power to rape and pilage the rest of the country.

I believe their is no difference the churches condone it via their inaction......

Whaddya reckon the chances might be for a skilled journalist to achieve this?