Imagine, a handful of big lazy companies, lots of waste, feather bedding, high distribution costs all around the nation, but only 2 or 3% net profit on sales when the annual accounts are in. High cost to consumers, but all perfectly fair and so no complaints.
Imagine, a handful of big intelligent companies who decide to rationalise the manufacture and distribution of goods, so that their factories can work steadily into local markets. Overall prices are cheaper to consumers, but company profits - through this intelligent collusion - are doubled. This is bad.
I am all for competition, but final efficiency is also an important consideration. I am not confident that our regulations and legal mechanisms always work to our benefit. More thinking, less moralising is required in my opinion.

I say Carson, old China, pass the snifter will you. And listen up, tight, if you knows what's good fer ya.

Last year I steals a cool $million from tyhe AynZed. What a cracker of a job, really something. They didn't know what hit 'em. Bloody fool of a teller stuck his foot on the snout-bell. Frightened the life outer me.

Anyway, I says to the judge, I says, when he asks me wever I has anything to say before he passes sentence on me, "There’s no harm to the economy when the $1 billion is in me own pocket instead of in the bank." It’s still in the economy," I says, "to be spent somewhere."

Yer know, the frickin' prig wouldn't even listen to me. 'Down yer go, me boy. Yer a menace to society.'

No appreciation of economics and morality, those judges. Now if I was outside I could be makin' a decent contibution to the economy, shiften a bit to the Blueboys and given the wife some playdough for the Hopera.

Come and visit me Carson, ya old bludger. I haven't seen no-one since last April Fools Day.

Frank,
You are a better comedian and master of mimicry than economist or ethicist.
Ditch the day job and do stand up. In time it will pay off and not only will you get outside more often, but in that environment it is quite acceptable to take poetic licence with economic truths.

By the way, Hold-Up Harry wasn’t sent down for five years for being a menace to the economy. It was for straight out larceny, a property menace to other members of society.
The stock market playing cat burglar, who purloins his investment capital from someone who otherwise spends his inheritance on drugs and loose women, probably IS doing something good for the economy, not that that should mitigate his crime.

See you on the Comedy Channel.

Frank,

I have to say that made me chuckle a bit. Nicely done.

Edward: "The stock market playing cat burglar, who purloins his investment capital from someone who otherwise spends his inheritance on drugs and loose women, probably IS doing something good for the economy, not that that should mitigate his crime."

Only in this case the investment capital was taken from businesses who were focused on better efficiency or producing a better product. Now instead of being able to invest that capital in ways that help the economy it was siphoned off by the higher prices on cardboard boxes. The colluding group does not need to invest this money in improving their business as their collusion ensures that they will not be under threat from their competitors. Price fixing results in less capital being used to improve the economy, which is why there are laws against it. Just about every sane economist and western government agrees on this issue, it's not that hard to understand.