Comments on: CIS’ position on cartels just doesn’t sit right

By: AR

AR — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:48:59 +0000

How does anyone (even Soon) write “..distorting business conduct by ‘chilling’ competitive conduct or innovative cooperative agreements between firms that would otherwise capture efficiencies..” with a straight face?
Two more contrasting actions (in this context) would be hard to imagine.
Either firms are “competitive” - being legal, if not honourable - or indulging in “innovative cooperative agreements”, aka cartels.
Adam Smith’s much quoted magical “invisible hand” comes from his observation “men of similar interests seldom meet, even socially, without it resulting it a conspiracy against the customer”.
It is theft/fraud, pure & simple.

By: Scott Grant

Scott Grant — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:58:17 +0000

Talking about cartels and nominal competitors cooperating, is’nt it odd that the two major purveyors of cheap chocolate to the masses in Australia reduced their block sizes and changed their packaging almost simultaneously? I wonder if the new cardboard packages come from Visy or Amcor? Thank heavens for Whittakers.

By: Nigel Evans

Nigel Evans — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:36:07 +0000

Just a touch hypocritical!!!

True to form, the CIS is pro-market only when it suits the rent-seekers they represent.

“not obvious that such laws can be justified given the costs of enforcing such laws” - if we enforced all laws based on this narrow cost-benefit measure i doubt we would have many laws at all.

Cartels are theft. Visy-Amcor cost us billions….