Go away Flint we can't take anything you say as anything but a joke.

Check you dictionary Frank. Fraud is defined as an intentionally dishonest act or omission to facilitate a sale.
It is not enough that the bosses of Visy and Amcor had a private conversation. Pratt would have had to imply some dishonesty or withhold some fact to his customers. OK, he didn’t tell them he was fixing a price with Amcor, but so what? How would that have made a difference? The price was still the same price on offer.

An example of actual fraud: You buy a second hand car off a dealer at top price because the salesman told you it just had a new motor installed. You later find out there is no new motor. Why you are a victim is because if you knew the full story you would not have paid so much, or because you got less than what you paid for.

Where is the parallel with Pratt? How would knowing of the price fixing have made a difference? The buyers got what they expected to get at a price they deemed to be worthwhile. The whole concept of fraud is that if you knew the full story you wouldn’t buy at that price.

The cartel members met secretly only because of the #$@?! law.
When the waterside workers get together to discuss putting up the price of their labour, all by the same amount, they don’t meet in secret. They don’t have to, as there is no law against it.

The point with the house I was trying to make is that you and your ohorts seem to imply that with any product there is just some legal selling price. It is that that is ludicrous. Any price is moral as long as no fraud, force, etc., is involved.

Re Confession: as I said at the beginning of my first post, Pratt broke the existing law so there is nothing he can do but fess up and pay. Being morally correct doesn’t protect you from a stupid law. Owning up early and showing “contrition” helps save you millions of dollars.

Edward

You're becoming more confused with each posting.

Your definition of fraud - "an intentionally dishonest act or omission to facilitate a sale" - is exactly what Pratt did. You have conceded Pratt 'fessed up' and showed "contrition" in order to "save millions". What did he confess to? What is he prepared to be contrite about? Why does Pratt say what he says about his foolishness?

You're rather cute when you claim: "It is not enough that the bosses of Visy and Amcor had a private conversation." There are many more facts than that a private conversation was held - the facts are not in dispute. Visy and Amcor have conceded the facts.

You yourself it would be fraud if Pratt implied: "...some dishonesty or withh[e]ld some fact to his customers." And then you concede: "OK, he didn’t tell them he was fixing a price with Amcor..." Oh?

You go on to ask "so what?" And disingenously, and against all the evidence, claim that the cartel arrangment didn't affect the price. A bizarre claim. Why are Pratt's customers threatening class action? Their lawyers will doubtless take note of your dishonest car dealer analogy "Why you are a victim is because if you knew the full story you would not have paid so much..." Precisely.

Your assertion that: "The whole concept of fraud is that if you knew the full story you wouldn’t buy at that price" is exactly what they will argue against Pratt. Moreover, if Visy and Amcor had not acted illegally, cardboard consumers would have paid a lesser price.

Your claim that it was just simply the law that was faulty is breathtaking. On that basis, let's clear the statute books of all legislation that protects consumers? It's a novel argument. I wonder how many votes Howard and Costello would get running that line? Would the consumers of Australia give them a mandate?

Your conclusion that "Any price is moral as long as no fraud, force, etc., is involved" is reasonable; so why are you incapable of applying your principle to the Pratt case?

Edward Carson: "...can someone tell me what harm he has actually caused to society? To me, all he seems to have done is to put a price on his cardboard boxes, to accept an offer to sell his boxes for that price, and then to sell them. Price collusion or not, where is the harm?"

The immorality or harm to society can been seen by taking the issue to its extremities. Imagine for a moment that the country only had two farming companies that were the only entities to sell food. Now imagine they got together and decided that people would have to pay their life savings to buy their next loaf of bread. It would cause irreparable harm to society and the economy. Although the overall harm was not as dire as my example would be the principle is still the same. Fair competition is a fundamental requirement for a capitalist economy. Attacks on our economy, through price fixing, need to be treated seriously.

"When the waterside workers get together to discuss putting up the price of their labour, all by the same amount, they don’t meet in secret."

Labour has been, is and always will be a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy. The main reason for this is that people are very different entities to businesses, and to try to treat them the same is just ridiculous.

As for the articles claim: "..little different from the markets in which the newspapers which carried the very personal attacks on Pratt also operate. Except for utopian socialists, there is nothing much to object to about concentrated markets."

The key issue for the concentration of media ownership is not one of economics as it is in the Pratt case, but one of the significant influence the media has on the political sphere and the grave danger to our democracy of one political faction gaining dominating control of it.

'Labour has been, is and always will be a 'market' treated differently than other sections of the economy.'
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 22 October 2007 5:23:36 PM
Has it, is it, will it?
Does the same apply, should it apply, to self-employed tradesmen also?

David Flint is raving on about socialists again.
Time for Dr Flint to accept that charging of prices for cardboard boxes to farmers or anyone else is immoral if it is beyond a fair and reasonable price.
It was found to be at least 20% above.

Regards David
Try harder next time to be fair.
PS: how was your expensive lunch today at La Guilottine French resturant? Was it yummy?