I’m struggling Shadow Minister to make sense of your post. So rather than respond to what you have written, could I please request a somewhat fuller description of your concerns about my desire for good regulation of the market and to certainly not just leave the market as a free and unregulated entity.

Thanks.

Regulations are not really that important anymore. There is so much red tape, nonsense, forms and whatever to start a business if you want to do it legally you would not survive. If you operate illegally then there is probably about 90% chance of getting away with it. There is no actual reward for a ethical operator so I am perhaps being a bit harsh.

I got taken by a "business" and ended up in the supreme court. I had started proceedings in the fair trading tribunal and their lawyer said they shoud take me to a higher court to prempt that as it may have led to loss of license. So goes higher court, judge doesn't want to know about it because it should have gone to tribunal. I get told not to push it because it will annoy the judge. So I am begged not to front a court I was forced to go to. Business needed a good lawyer to protect the business as a going concern. I was only after a small hearing. The cost to get justice was too high for me as I had a lot less to lose and could not justify it. Long story but hardly worth getting justice as a consumer. If you suffer from illegal operations as an employee even harder.

I read one convenience store operator was fined $50,000 for underpaying staff. They were still at it not much later. The fine was less than their savings probably. Or they needed to keep underpaying staff to pay the fine lol. Either way did not work.

So rules only help lawyers and crooks.

You have never run a business, have you Ludwig?

>>how could we possibly have a healthy business environment without a vigorous rule of law?<<

We do. Because there is.

>>You are forced to buy far more than you want, because there is no regulation preventing this.<<

Not at all.

If that supplier wants to keep my custom, we needs to agree reasonable terms. If he fails to abide by those terms, I find another supplier. If none of the suppliers will meet my required terms, none of them will have my custom.

If they gang together to fix prices, that's already against the law.

If they decide that they don't need small retailers, that's very much their problem. We are, as a group, far more valuable to them than the big retailers, who have entire departments dedicated to keeping the distributors on their financial toes.

>>You find that some of the stock is damaged. You try to return it and get your money back. But of course you are told to get stuffed.<<

I will already have the terms of trade written into our supplier agreement. If they break those terms, I take them to court. Most often, they don't like to be taken to court.

>>The argument that you have leads to the wholesaler defaming you because he has decided that he wants to drive you out of business.<<

You forget that without us, collectively, he has no business.

>>He’s got friends who pay you a visit, do a bit of damage, make you look very bad to your customers, and on top of that, extort you.<<

Where are we? Palermo?

>>Then there is a shop just down the road that can sell the same sort of stuff that you are selling at a considerably cheaper price, because it is owned by the wholesaler’s brother.<<

So the wholesaler would be better off with me as a customer, wouldn't he. Because I don't ask for a family discount.

But anyway, what law can you come up with to prevent nepotism?

In fact, what laws do you think we need?

Specifically.

Ludwig,

Regulations always impose a compliance cost on business, usually greater on smaller businesses. As these costs can only be passed onto the customer, who benefits?

The laws of supply and demand indicate for a lower price supply decreases while demand increases.

The classic is the lesson learnt by most socialists in imposing rent control. Very shortly there was a desperate shortage of rental property which pushed up rents in non rent controlled areas. Grocery price controls lead to empty shelves in regulated stores with much higher prices in an informal (black) market.

If a business charges too much the customers will move. It is not the place of government to interfere, any such regulation is not a good regulation, and why even the most rabid left wing goverments shy away from this suicidal policy.

Thinker2 “Welcome to an Australian Christmas of profiteering.”

Actually when I think about how the incumbent government is planning to spend up to $200 billion on the “dimulous and associated squanderings” and all the other bulldust which socialist see as “essentials “ and reflect on the 700+ a year it will cost every man, woman and child per annum in interest alone, I find the notion of “Christmas” to be something which is completely unaffordable

So as for profiteering, well when the vendor is a private company, you are not actually “forced” to buy from them but when government get into any act, they can extort what they like, when they like and you can do absolutely nothing about it.

I suppose we will soon all start pining for the prudence of the Howard government when the bills for the “dimulous shindig” start hitting the voting tax payers.

If "business" is to be maligned as "Crime",

"Government" could readily be aligned with "child prostitution" (because it is the as yet unborn generations who will be working their a##es off to pay for the socialist profligacy of today

Ludwig, you don't seem to understand that it is mutual benefit that brings the seller and the buyer together.

Whether the wholesaler is importing computer games from China, or cuddly toys from the Philippines, or cans of beans from Mexico, he will need people - retailers - to engage with the public to sell the products at street level.

To do this, he will set up a number of reseller agreements, with prices and volumes stipulated.

If he sets one up with a small retailer, the volumes will be small, but the price per unit will be higher.

If he is able to convince a buyer at a major retailer to display his product, that agreement will stipulate higher volumes, but at a much lower price. In addition, he may also be asked to pay for supermarket shelf space...

So the relationship is highly synergistic. It is in the wholesaler's interests that you succeed.

The standover tactics that you describe are already illegal, by the way.

>>You are forced to buy far more than you want, because there is no regulation preventing this.<<

If we straighten that out a little, you are saying that:

"There is no regulation preventing you from being forced to buy more than you want"

But of course there isn't. Because you cannot be "forced to buy" in the first place.

>>the sort of regulatory regime that will... help prevent retailers from being ripped off, sold substandard stock, being extorted, defamed or undercut by big competitors to the point of making them non-viable<<

It is already an offence to sell me substandard stock, and against the law to extort or defame.

And you can't prevent undercutting, without imposing price control.

Which patently never works.

Think about it.

If I sell those Mexican beans for $2, and the supermarket next door undercuts me at $1.50, what are the price watchdog's options?

Make me sell at $1.50, or make him sell at $2?

You can see who would win out of that, can't you?