“I don't make any economic assumptions.”
Yes you do. Any human action involving choice among scarce resources involves economics, whose principles apply whether or not you understand them.

You assume that:
1. there is such a thing as fair or unfair profits
2. profit margins are increasing unnecessarily
3. there are two mutually antagonistic economic classes of persons: the haves and the have-nots
4. it is fair and would be more physically productive to resolve that conflict by aggressive violence

“I would suggest that with your silence Peter to this specific question, is because you would not believe this is a fair question to ask ?. Am I right?.”
I wasn’t silent on it. I answered it with my questions which were intended to find out what you mean because it’s not clear
1. who is the “we” you refer to
2. who is the “our” you refer to
3. why “current level of profits” are justified.

So it’s not that you’re *not* making economic assumptions. It’s that you’re making false economic assumptions that you are unaware of.

“As for the proposition that the difference between Govt and a Retail store, is that the govt has guns, is something I am also assuming that we shouldn't have to consider in our economic modelling Peter.”

Why not?

You’re facing two basic problems – to show that
A. existing profit levels are excessive and the result is unfair to the consumers
B. government intervention could produce a fairer result.

The problem with A. is that you have to define excessive profits, which you haven’t done yet. You are trying to define it as profits above “current level” or normal profits. But this assumes that current level or normal profits are justified. But what are normal profits? And why are current level profits justified? If profits are not justified, then current level profits are not justified. But if profits are justified, then why not does the same justification apply to profits above that level?

The problem with B. is that the consumers of government have even less protection because:
o Paying retailers is voluntary; paying government is under threat of imprisonment
o The laws against fraud and deceptive conduct apply only to trade and commerce; they do not apply to politics and government
o It is a criminal offence for retailers to use force to exclude competition; but not for government
o Consumers of retails services get a COMPLETE VETO on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION; consumers of government get one 22-millionth of a say only once every three years in which all decisions are bundled with no way to distinguish them
o The electoral process provides NO WAY OF KNOWING whether the majority are in fact in favour of any given decision
o The government is by definition a monopoly of armed force, which it uses to exclude competition.

Therefore it is completely invalid to assume that government – of all people – are able to provide greater consumer protection when government themselves are more monopolistic and fraudulent and less representative of the consumers in every way.

To get to square one you need to:
o Say what justifies profit at all
o Define excessive profit
o Prove why they are unfair – why the justification of profit doesn’t apply any more
o Define the haves and have-nots
o Prove that government is not a legal monopoly of force
o Prove that a complete and binding say on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION EVERY DAY is less representative of the consumer than one 22-millionth of a non-binding say once every every three years
o Prove that the Trade Practices Act law against misleading and deceptive conduct applies to politicians and bureaucrats
o Prove that the law against fraud, as it applies to retailers’ advertising, applies equally to politicians in election campaigns
o Prove that aggressive violence is ethically superior to consensual freedom.

The interventions you suggest would be less fair and would make everyone poorer – in short, they would have the *opposite* effect to what you intend.

5 Ways Hi-Tech Retailers Are Secretly Screwing You
http://www.cracked.com/article_19022_5-ways-hi-tech-retailers-are-secretly-screwing-you.html

Amazon has to take the prize for douchiest price-discrepancy scheme. Back in 2000, it launched what it called a "price test."

Amazon would analyze your previous purchases
and start charging you *what it thought you would be willing to pay, not what the item was actually priced at.

Customers discovered that if they cleared their cookies, they'd often find the same item available for less than it was offered for when they were signed in.

Thanks OUG for your informative link, it just goes to show how many more ways business has invented to short change the consumer.

The onus is not upon myself to prove anything PH as the process to which I am referring is a fact of life.

I'm talking about the powerful dealing with the powerless, it is also a fact of life PH and there has always been a requirement in a democracy for Gov't to act on behalf of it's people.

You seem to be advocating that the powerful should regulate themselves Peter. This is recipe for disaster in the long run. And history proves my assertions correct.

Show me a case PH where business, given a free reign, has acted out of anything other than it's own perceived self interest and I'll quantify excess profit for you, if I haven't already done so in your eyes. Let's not get weighed down in diversions.

The we for example is us, all of us, including those to which we look too for leadership.

The two richest Rhinehardt and Fortescue are currently having a two way battle for richest person spot. How does this have a positive affect on my life. PH It doesn't, it is irrelevant.

Just as postulating about whether I'm making assumptions or not is irrelevant.

I ask that the previous regulatory framework enjoyed in this country be restored in order that we progress to a fairer Australia. Because my own life is becoming less fair minute by minute. Seeing that I am just an ordinary guy I expect that others have also noticed this growing imbalance of power and influence.

Our current Trade Practices and Industrial Relations Acts have encouraged Corporate domination of our economy. Our essential services now longer belong to us and none of the predicted benefits have materialised.

Competition has not created lower prices, but it has created profits margins way beyond the gazetted inflation figures. Commercial in confidence laws will ensure that the truth will not be known anyway PH., but attempting to quell discussion about it is not useful.

P.S OUG Im dumping all the cookies on my computer as we speak.

thinker 2
You still haven't defined excess profit on which your entire argument depends. You still haven't said why any profit is justified, and therefore have failed to show how your argument could be anything other than illogical. Your definition of "us" as "all of us" is laughably stupidly inadequate. You have failed to distinguish the 'we' who are to decide from the 'our' who own the profits. Your assumption that government represents the people better than they represent themselves completely fails to deal with the irrefutable reason showing that it doesn't.

What you've said is illogical, evasive and dishonest. You are unable to defend your own argument and merely fall back to assuming what is in issue, and asserting that you don't have to prove anything.

It is you who are suggesting that the powerful should regulate themselves.

You are in favour of a *less* social economy, *greater* privileges for the powerful, *greater* impoverishment of the masses - and when the illogical and falsity of your own arguments is pointed out, instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and re-thinking your ignorant anti-social opinions, you just adopt the schoolyard tactic of putting your fingers in your ears and arguing "It is because it is. I am right because I am right."

I have proved your arguments to be irrational, and you have not either defended your argument or refuted mine.