*They aren't altruistic they want Quid pro Quo. Business bang for their buck.*

Examinator, you really don't know much about seriously rich people.
Warren Buffett is 79. He still lives in the house that he bought
in the 50s for 30 grand. He's worth 45 billion or so. He does not
need any business bang for his buck. What he does in business, as
with many rich people, is purely for fun and challenge. Indeed he is altruistic,
but not in business, because that is not what business is about.
That is what charity is about. Do your homework, check out how
much rich Americans give in terms of philanthopy, it is huge.

*BP are currently doing what they are because if they don't a bigger power*

BP are doing what they are doing because they know perfectly well
that an even bigger power, ie US law suits, will be rolling in by
the thousands and they could well bankrupt the company. British
pensioners, who own a large chunk of BP, could lose it all.

*especially by the 'big' is feral and needs controlling for the benefit of the people on a wider scale.*

There are plenty of ferals who need controlling too, that is why
we have laws for both people and businesses.

*but I am against unelected few via corporation often from other country perverting and or subverting our elected government of any colour*

Quite simple, they are doing things that are illegal or they are not.
For that we have a court system, to sort it out. Just because a
politician is elected, does not make them a saint. That is also
why we need a separation of the powers.

Foxy, yes indeed that is all part of business, for a whole host
of reasons which I can explain, if you really want to know. But
its a long winded story lol.

Severin, consumer choice.

The mergers of Coles and Myer groups and the separate mergers of Woolworth and Safeway were sanctioned by the Keating government. So don’t blame me, I have never voted for the rancid side of politics and had it been my personal choice, I would have blocked the mergers in the name of the national good.

Secondly, despite the apparent Coles : Woolworth Oligopoly in retail I note, Coles : Myer has been broken back and other players like Aldi and Costco have both entered the retail markets, which dilutes the impact of retail concentration in the old chains.

So your comment on “choice” fails.

Regarding genes and progeny – the only thing I can offer my progeny happens to be the best thing.... my genes.

However, we do need to do more to ensure the meddlesome bunglers of the left are kept from teaching children,

“Nature” is so much better served when supported by productive “nurturing”,

instead of a lot of obsessive rubbish about equality and fairness.

Examinator, please, resist patronising, I do get the point.

Consumers are individuals, they buy from corporations.

Corporations go to a lot of trouble to ensure they retain individual consumer patronage.

For instance, the success of scurrilous organisations like PETA are based on the working to manipulate the concerns corporations have for their individual consumers.

I note, Mr Rudd & Co seem to show no regard for the individual owners of the houses their policies burnt down, the profligate waste of tax payers resources on stupid stimulous packages nor the opinion of superannuation paying consumers on the extra taxes been expropriated from the mining companies their superfunds are invested in.

As for nitpicking, if your opinion counted, I would be insulted.

However, I am not insulted, so what does that convey?

My own arching point would be to suggest

It is a pure indulgence of the inept to criticise the actions of the able and pretend that they would be so much better doing what we all know will never be put to the test.

Stern

I did not blame you for the competitive impasse of Woolies and Coles. Also all federal governments of either political stripe have not supported genuine competition in this country.

Consumers have reached a low level of apathy as a result of corporations running the government.

Below is a link to to a report by the chief executive of Choice magazine suggesting action that can be taken by consumers to achieve good service and high standards of produce. Clearly no government is going to act.

"I would like to see the introduction of ''super-complaints'' here. In Britain they work by allowing designated bodies to complain on behalf of consumers to the Office of Fair Trading or other regulator. They were used with great effect to expose overpricing in the motor industry.

In Australia they would give grass-roots organisations, which know what it is like for consumers, the power to refer troublesome market sectors to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Consumers have the right to know which companies persistently commit offences against consumers. A register should be set up to log such offences and reveal them for all to see.

These ideas and more are being discussed at the National Consumer Congress in Sydney with politicians, policymakers, regulators, consumer advocates and businesses."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/consumers-must-stop-accepting-second-best-20100315-q9id.html

Severin corporations running the government

That is a big claim and a fraudulent one.

For instance, the incumbent federal government is run by ex-union officials doing the bidding of their union bosses (which does explain some of the mess).

If corporations ran government do you think there would be so much dead-wood in the public service?

Of course not, the chain saw wielding forces of corporate efficiency would cut them down in an instant, just like Jeff did in Victoria over a decade ago.... and now needs to do again... a healthy forest (of woody bureaucrats) needs someone to clear the dead-wood from the forest floor and saw down the sick trees.

As for setting up new super-bureaucracies, well why not start with one to look at the public sector. Centerlink, for instance and how their high handed public officials ride roughshod over consumers.

Mind you we will probably end up needing a super-dooper-complaints dept to investigate the complaints against the super-complaints dept, such is the nature of inept and unaccountable public bureaucracies.

Speaking personally, as I usually do, I would rather individuals researched who they were buying from versus being taxed for some official of bland appearance and response, to be employed to list naughty vendors.

You see, the public are far more savvy than you give them credit for.

All you seem to be advocating is employ more useless people in pointless nanny positions, which adds nothing to the national wealth.

Better they find productive jobs, like hand crafting ornate widgets.

Dear Yabby,

If you've got the time to explain,
I've got the time to read it.

So go for it!

I'd love to hear from you.

"As for nitpicking, if your opinion counted, I would be insulted.

However, I am not insulted, so what does that convey?

My own arching point would be to suggest

It is a pure indulgence of the inept to criticise the actions of the able and pretend that they would be so much better doing what we all know will never be put to the test.
Posted by Stern, Monday, 21 June 2010 8:32:38 AM"

True. Very true.