Some of the answers to your confusion lie within the post itself, examinator.

You observe that...

>>The decision to stock Asian tomatoes or Aussie has more to do with and how much more profit *the super market* can make<<

If this is the case, wouldn't you expect the net margin from supermarket operations to increase more significantly than it does? Woolworths'- who have been spectacularly successful of late - EBIT is still less than seven cents in the dollar. Healthy, but hardly a rip-off, I would suggest.

But here's the kicker:

>>Aldi & no name are proving choice is not always the prime motivator, it’s price.<<

The point is that Woolworths are in competition with (amongst others) Aldi. If they don't stay keen on their pricing, more business will walk out of the door and go shopping at Aldi. Which is, as you know, a German company. Whose founders, Karl and Theo Albrecht, are Germany's richest men. Do you really want to make them richer still?

As Yabby succinctly points out, protectionism has only ever made people lazier, and poorer.

But this seems to be your goal anyway.

>>As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.<<

I'm sure Australia will thank you for your concern. And continue to buy the products that fit within their budgets.

*think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.*

So what you are implying Examinator, is that its ok to take a much
bigger battering then might have been the case. I will agree to
disagree with you on that one. Given that there are finite resources
and we have more then our share of them, as long as we own them
and don't flog em off before they are even dug up, our lifestyle
should be improving.

*In truth the choice stops with the corporations.*

Not so, power rests with consumers. If enough people vote for
a product with their wallets, companies will stock it. Once again,
supermarkets are very sensitive to complaints, if enough people
complain.

One of the high costs that Coles and Woolies have, is stocking
such a huge range of choice, from so many places. If you want
Australian tomatoes, they are available, its your choice.

Aldi has a different business model. Price and limited choice
is their game, so they attract a different kind of consumer.

Woolies and Coles are largely owned by Australian workers and mums
and dads. Aldi is owned by two of the world's wealthiest Germans.

Costco, who are on their way, have a different model yet again,
ie bulk is cheap.

IGA play on the locally owned angle and benchmark themselves against
Coles and Woolies.

We know from their annual reports, that profit margins for Coles
and Woolies are in fact quite low. 2-3c in the Dollar for Coles,
4-5c for Woolies, because of their superior logistics.

*Yet it was dropped because the big 3 offered the chain a deal bought the floor space*

I hope that they rushed to JB Hifi and did a deal. Consumer word
of mouth is still the best advertising that money can buy.

*For those reason among many I would like Aust to be self sufficient in all its *needs*.*

We don't have the population to do that, neither the economies of
scale. So best to just let consumers vote with their wallets.

There is an other thread with the title "Commonsense fairness - CEO pay"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8670
The good thing is that even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd condemned the excessive salary packages, even at the G20 summit.
For me it is a logical, fair and useful to put a cup on CEOs income!
But we must be careful, do not leave any hole to cup on CEOs income!
No more than $300.000 per year, combined!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Pericles
You said “If this is the case, wouldn't you expect the net margin from supermarket operations to increase more significantly than it does?”
Why? This model relies on cash flow and has little to do with the corps discriminatory marketing practices and the overall profitability (7% of $1 million V of $5billion). They are in “cash cow market stage” of the market cycle. You need to examine their accounts more closely.

The Aldi model is different and proves the point that choice is illusionary particularly if you don’t have the money to exercise it. Aldi has more growth potential. (Watch that space) they’re still in their early growth stages here.

You said “The Albrechts are Germany's richest men. Do you really want to make them richer still?”
Aren’t you mixing two standards here? On one hand saying we want choice of overseas products (making other countries manufactures rich at the expense of ours) then on the other implying patriotic interests.

You said “As Yabby succinctly points out, protectionism has only ever made people lazier and poorer”. (Assumptive, rhetoric& as an absolute… bollocks). It isn’t my goal at all (again this conclusion is myopic thinking on valium)

I said >>As for the equating a lesser life style to losing the choice for overseas products, think again life style for the majority of Ausies will inevitably take a battering.<<
You are quoting me out of context I actually meant that GCC et al will inflict a battering especially if we don’t at least make our selves more self-sufficient/independent. Think of it like this what are we going to do if overseas food prices start increasing exponentially because of GCC and given ours have been left to die?
And I haven’t touched on the disease/contamination risk factors.

BTW the absence of one extreme doesn’t imply the other extreme. I’m not talking protectionism. That is limited thinking stop thinking in extremes it is more productive.

Yabby,
I’ve read your response several times and there is no way I can respond meaningfully in the space and your interest limitations. So just a few notes.

Your first paragraph misses the point it is entirely your spin.
Second Para is based on theoretical assumptions. Which in practice isn’t a real factor?
• The public are conditioned and essentially compliant to the products conveniently available. (shopping centres)
Aldi have a different model true…different clientele? Consider Bi Low/ Franklins it is their cheap end of the market less choice and shrinking.

IGA have chosen the wrong model to compete 3 have closed in my suburb they can’t compete and are squeezed out in competitive areas.

Your final comment is true only on some manufactured goods if we want multiple choices of the same product.
If you want to see choice for it’s own sake look at active ingredients in cleaning products. They are functionally the same.
Washing powders vary in fillers and colour of colouring agents and the box.
By that I mean a Lever and Kitchen make most of the brands in washing powders they all have the same compliances and base formula.
Difference between brands made for Aust markets are often in the amount filler and fluorescence chemical giving the impression of being cleaner (cultural preference) Hence the ads push ‘brighter than bright’. Cleanliness is virtually identical.

If you go to a chemical manufacturer you can buy a more “pure” version minus the fillers that make the packet larger (value perception) seem more and the BS fluorescence.
In truth Lever and Kitchen could reduce their range to perhaps two products. Brands are often designed to illusionary choices.
Most sterilizers are based on 1% chlorine regardless of brand… the difference the bottle which is designed to appeal.

BTW Batteries aren’t at JB I checked.

Except for people like me branding, impulse, convenience and price are the major factors in most retailing. (Marketing 101). Business models simply move these around.

Spin Examinator? I put it to you that my point was a logical and
rational deducation in response to your claim. Now just stop and
think for a minute. Just take one single product, computers.

We need them, so you think we should make them here. Do you know
the cost of building a factory to make microprocessors? Then
another factory to make memory chips? Now double it, so that
you have at least some competition. All for a small market
like Australia? Do you know how much your Aussie computer will
cost you? I put it to you that if you were forced to buy an
Australian made computer, it would cost you so much, that your
standard of living would in fact go down, or you simply could
not afford one. All this to achieve what?

My second paragraph is based on fact that even you might have noticed.
Right now supermarkets are bending over backwards to advertise
that they stock local products, made in Australia, especially
fresh produce. For good reasons, ie public pressure.

*Except for people like me branding, impulse, convenience and price are the major factors in most retailing. *

Nonsense, there is a whole layer of consumers who you seem to have
not even thought of, who want value for money. Washing powder
might be generic, ideal for home brands etc, but take things like
vinegar, mayonnaise, jams, chocolate, coffee, tea, etc. There is
a huge difference in taste and quality.

Yes, your pensioners and unmarried mothers might buy what is cheapest.
But your accountants, bank managers, etc, will buy what they want,
what they like and what is value for money.

That is exactly why companies like Lindt, Thomy, Hero, can produce
their products in high wage countries and still sell them at Coles!
Consumer demand and that includes me and most of my friends.

Why do you think that Miele, and other European companies can sell
their appliances in Australia? Some people prefer to buy quality
that lasts, rather then the lowest sticker price, to be thrown away
in a year.