You silly people. Don't you know that Mr Rudd's grocery watch was going to bring prices down.

*The sole purpose of the majority of these extra positions in the chain is to make money for the wealthy running things.*

Max, low level corruption can exist in any supply chain, anywhere.
I know of it even in the restaurant industry, where chefs would
buy their meat and seafood from certain suppliers, due to kickbacks.
Mind you, to my knowledge its far less of a problem in Australia,
then in Asia where its common and even in Europe, where I have
heard of quite a few cases.

Yes, low level corruption costs everyone, as does shoplifting.

In this case, you are implying that it also happens in our food
delivery supply chains. That is possible. When Wesfarmers took
over Coles 18 months or so ago, their managers flew into Melbourne
and totally reorganised the old management. Many heads rolled out
the door, some of them I gather, for the reasons that you are
suggesting.

The thing is, today's managers are very well paid by shareholders.
If one of them is making a few bob on the side, which can certainly
happen in the buying sections, his career would soon be over if
his little schemes come to light. Thats the end of the big salary
too. So it would be a stupid employee who would take such risks.

What you are suggesting is that the very top people in these
companies are corrupt and on that score I strongly disagree with
you and its mere speculation on your part

Oh good grief rechtub, how many prices have YOU set as a customer?
Then customer I was referring to was the big chains, C&W, not the ultimate retail customer. When prices are set by the big un’s, we have little choice but to pay it, not so the truckies, who must take what they’re given and meet demanding schedules, that can and do cause accidents on our roads. The farmer/producer is in the same boat, he must take what is offered, no matter his o/h’s.
Not buying food is not an option, and as the chains have wiped out most of the small competition, there is no longer the availability of choice, in a real sense.
Prices in the chains are NOT a reflection of demand, but of their need to make obscene profits. Why do you think most are reducing their lines, more and more generic options, and less name brands, and then only the bigger ones. Better margins, that’s why, not consumer demands. Very little of the generic stuff is Australian, again shafting local producers, and the quality is often inferior, who wants or asked for THAT?
In effect, the boards of the megaliths control the costs/prices at every step, from gate to fridge, surely NOT a healthy, competitive situation?
Yabby, it’s not “corruption” in your terms, but it’s still a corrupt practice, socially and morally in my terms, and bleeds us all. Since the top strata of business and the Gov co-operate to determine legality, and business has virtually a free rein in how they structure the whole thing, of course their feeding frenzy is “legal”, but it’s destroying the free-market they all spout about, and costing us more now and in the long run.

rehctub:“This is the problem. And remember, every time you want something cheaper you are in fact ripping off the farmer as most other costs are set. In most cases he just gets what is left.”

That is that romantic view of the old guy on the tractor jumping off to dig up his spuds and put them on the little trailer aye. Not those massive farms where the “farmer” is suit wearing CEO.

I wish we could all decide to rip them off. Oh and go organic while we’re at it.

So, and I might have missed it, why was NZ paying less for the same product?

Yabby,

Max is talking about structural corruption, where a whole industry of financial parasites effectively positions itself in the supply chain for doing little of substance or productive worth but which expects to be remunerated for just being there.

Thinking outside the square, why have the blighters at all? That's why I've suggested going to a more localised, market-garden type of approach as the food will be fresher and cheaper, the "carbon footprint" for transporting food to market will be less and there will be more opportunity for more people to be actively employed selling and growing in the food business.

RobP, Max is simply jumping from consipiracy theory to consipiracy
theory right now. Yes, Woolies and Coles make a profit, but in
relation to what they do actually do, its quite slim.

For what you are thinking, there are already Farmers Markets being
set up all around Australia. Many people love them and go every
week, but for many like myself, convenience matters and when it
comes to value for money and time, I think I am getting a more
then fair deal and clearly those many other shoppers agree with me.

I could go to IGA, they cost more, the selection is not there.
I do what you do, I buy the specials and pop stuff in the freezer.
Each week there is meat on special, I have a bit of a pantry at
home for other stuff, easy peasy, cheaper groceries and meat.

IMHO alot of what is being raised is due to the fact that a few
very large global multinationals supply Coles and Woolies with many
of those products and they call the shots. Simplot, Nestle, Unilever,
Kellogs etc, operate globally and they call the real shots. They
can price stuff differently into different markets, with higher
margins in some countries, lower in others, whatever the market
will bear.

It became an issue when Aldi tried to bring in Nescafe from
Indonesia, where it was much cheaper and the crap hit the fan.

Just look at printer ink to see what some multinationals will
do to stop you buying cheaper in other countries. Now that
is a frigging ripp off, not the can of fruit etc that you buy
at the supermarket.

But Max is convinced of his consipiracy theories it seems,
even if the figures deny it.