We live in a capitalist and free enterprise society and while not perfect, it is better than the alternative with a whole lot of government control. I wonder whether those that complain about high prices and exploitation would not put their money in the best term deposit they could find. Or not sell their house for the best price they could. Perhaps they would like to trade in their car, would they not try and "horse trade" for the best deal ?
If you feel exploited by large companies, why not buy their shares if you think they are making too much money. However you probably own them indirectly through your super and you like to see that going up don't you. If you received a hot tip to make money and it was a certainty, I don't think many would forgo the opportunity while paying little attention to the loser, and to some degree there nearly always is one. The ACCC is a government body that overseas competition and monitors any kind of monopoly. On balance I think they do a good job. Just stop whinging about people who work hard and take a lot of risks. They usually deserve it if within the law.

It's great to read all views and Pericles is right, I do have some specifics in mind.
Themissus nailed it, in her/his first comment for me.

Firstly for those who fear increased Govt power, I fear Govt through pressure of vested interest more and my thought was to reduce their power through simplicity.

If we accept that a price increase at any tier of business should automatically be passed on to the end consumer, should we then also accept, that increases for the end consumer should only occur if the supplier/business can demonstratively prove an increase in their cost?.

Also, if this same end consumer does not receive a salary increase at the same level as inflation at least annually (wage indexation so called) then that consumer/worker is actually experiencing a drop in living standards annually as they work. Their capacity to purchase goods or services from their supplier/business being eroded at the same time their workplace supplier/business does not experience increasing cost through wages. This cannot and should not happen.

These 2 simple rules preserve living standards

If we understood Pericles "that the most desirable future for everyone (including the big end of town), is that we maintain living standards for everyone as they are". " And that we work to try to improve the lot of those with the least opportunity as a goal" then progress would actually be made.

Keeping everyone in the Australian Business chain (especially Corporations) honest (is a small start) that might make progress possible again.

How would business survive such simple understandings?: "by making a better widget", by progress or innovation and not by making or buying the cheapest possible consumer driven item to compete for the attention of the masses to the detriment of the planet etc.

Economics and the environment are intrinsically linked. " The notion that the driver for everything should be the need for the rich to get richer and for those who are not them to aspire to be them is irrational" , and I believe will result in devastation ultimately.

“I'm suggesting that lack of regulatory checks and balances is an encouragement for unethical behavior.”

Absolutely it is thinker 2. And there is no shortage of unscrupulous, aggressive and thuggish people who would take full advantage of a weak regulatory system.

This would also force otherwise decent people to undertake the same sort of practices if they wanted to survive.

---

“…short of Ludwig's centralization of the means of production…”

Hey what, Pericles?

It would seem as though you don’t understand my position at all. All I’m advocating is a somewhat stronger rule of law…just to shift the balance a bit in the favour of better regulation and away from free-market influences and the sort of inequalities that we see if the aggressive and unscrupulous have too much room to move. You appear to be attributing an extreme socialist or control-freak position to me. It ain’t the case.

Of course this sort of thing is a difficult balancing act, and one that is in constant flux. It is one of the great thorns in the side of every first-world government.

Yes there are downsides to too much regulation or the wrong sort of regulation. But that’s just got to be weighed up against the downsides of having a market system or business sector that is too free and lawless.

----

“Regulations always impose a compliance cost on business, usually greater on smaller businesses.”

Sure they do Shadow Minister. But what would the cost of no regulations or poor regulations be? Potentially much greater in most cases I would think.

That’ll do for now. I’ll delve deeper into this subject tomorrow.

If we accept that a price increase at any tier of business should automatically be passed on to the end consumer, should we then also accept, that increases for the end consumer should only occur if the supplier/business can demonstratively prove an increase in their cost?.

Wow, wouldn't this be a great idea, i'm all for it but in reality it just won't work.

There are simply to many viriables in running a business and, many small business owners, butchers included, have cut their margins for years to a point whereby many businesses make less today than they did 10 years ago.

Of course there are those who simply say, 'don't be in business then', boy, I sometimes wish it was that easy.

people who fail to plan will always be at the mercy of those who do. A lot of Christmas stuff can be brought cheaply if you don't leave things to the last minute. no one is going to starve at Christmas here in aussie so why the complaints. If you are desperate ring up the numerous aid agencies for a handout. I hope the business's that have to put up with all the Government red tape prosper. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Maybe some can celebrate Christmas a week later when things are cheaper. No one says it has to be 25 December.

Guys, please. I'm not for a moment suggesting that there aren't some unscrupulous elements out there in business-land.

But what I am suggesting is that the imposition of even more regulation on business is not necessarily the answer.

One of the reasons for my concern, by the way, is that every new addition to the game of red tape that we already play, works to the advantage of the big end of town, who have the staff to absorb each new piece of "consumer protection", or "compliance", or whatever.

thinker 2, this would be really nice...

>>my thought was to reduce [government] power through simplicity.<<

I'd be genuinely very interested to hear how you think this could be managed.

>>increases for the end consumer should only occur if the supplier/business can demonstratively prove an increase in their cost<<

Uh oh. Even more paperwork. And are you allowed to include additional staff costs as a component of that increase?

Ludwig, I apologise if I misunderstood you.

>>All I’m advocating is a somewhat stronger rule of law…just to shift the balance a bit in the favour of better regulation and away from free-market influences and the sort of inequalities that we see if the aggressive and unscrupulous have too much room to move. You appear to be attributing an extreme socialist or control-freak position to me. It ain’t the case.<<

Actually, it is partly your fault for not being specific.

Warm waffly words like "better regulation" really don't help, so it would be more illuminating if you could provide examples of what you have in mind. In their absence, I can only think you mean that government controls prices, which would lead to controlling distribution, and eventually production as well.

So do tell, what improvements could you see making a difference?