tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post7488428550027846620..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Blocking businessPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-62793286242559814682008-08-02T10:43:00.000+12:002008-08-02T10:43:00.000+12:00"fiend" should be "friend"Thanks."fiend" should be "friend"<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-65975372988024432832008-08-02T09:56:00.000+12:002008-08-02T09:56:00.000+12:00Great post PC. And add this to the raft of authori...Great post PC. And add this to the raft of authoritarian legislation going through Parliament at the moment.<BR/><BR/>For example, in the wake of the Finance Companies going down, which is correcting what is simply a bad business model, we have the panic induced Financial Advisors Bill going through. In this the definition of Financial Advisor is being cast so wide, it will probably catch me and make my job difficult, despite the fact I am NOT a financial advisor, and have never advised a single client into any of these companies, or any purchased investment product (given that is not my job). And of course the typical irony being, once the new Bill becomes an Act, do you know how many of these companies it would have saved? Not one.<BR/><BR/>They make rules upon rules upon rules, out of complete authoritarian ignorance, and just make everything even worse. There is truly little hope.<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but my time has to be spent on my own survival in a business environment that is having the very life regulated out of it. And 'they' wonder why smart people are leaving New Zealand in droves. Take twenty years off me and I'd be gone.<BR/><BR/>Mark HubbardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-47988038159535900042008-08-02T08:25:00.000+12:002008-08-02T08:25:00.000+12:00Mark,You state that the Warehouse will provide "mu...Mark,<BR/><BR/>You state that the Warehouse will provide "much needed competition". But you do not provide any standard to judge this buy. You might "feel" this to be true, but ultimately it is just a bland assertion.<BR/><BR/>You claim that the buy out would be bad for consumers. Again you provide no evidence. You simply ignore the potential for increased economies of scale.<BR/><BR/>Your further claim that the Commerce Commission was correct to intervene. Yet you ignore the fact that as long as free entry to the market is maintained (and it can only truly be prevented by government entities like the commerce commission) then the threat of competition remains. And if the market proves to be more lucrative than other opportunities then investors will move into the market.<BR/><BR/>You also ignore the simple fact that any regulation that interferes with firms ability to do business increases the cost and reduces the supply of that good to the market. The commerce commission is no fiend to the consumer!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-54143047214679495122008-08-02T07:47:00.000+12:002008-08-02T07:47:00.000+12:00PC Foodstuffs and Woolworths have for years mainta...PC Foodstuffs and Woolworths have for years maintained a cosy duopoly. The Warehouse has decided to enter the supermarket business and end this duopoly providing much needed competition. Foodstuffs and Woolworths, using their financial muscle want to buy the Warehouse thus ending the threatened competition. You approve of this. The Commerce Commission, recognising that this will remove much needed competition and will be bad for the consumer, has blocked this takeover. You condemn this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-16955636604527138342008-08-01T16:45:00.000+12:002008-08-01T16:45:00.000+12:00Stephen,The state has no business getting involved...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>The state has no business getting involved in private transactions. A larger sized business can often reduce costs. Bringing social benefits. Moreover, a market does not include only the current participants but ALL potential participants. If the current bunch were to make profits beyond the standard rate of return, then other firms will enter the market.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, monopoly is quite often a perfectly acceptable market structure. I think it quite reasonable that I have monopoly control over the shirt on my back or the contents of my wallet or the distribution of my book (currently unwritten).<BR/><BR/>Finally, while you seem to rally against the idea of monopoly, you accept, wholesale, that the the Commerce Commission is the legitimate wielder of monopoly force. Perhaps you should explain why monopolies are bad...except for those that you like...contradiction much?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-63775158892934626632008-08-01T16:40:00.000+12:002008-08-01T16:40:00.000+12:00Hi Stephen,I have no problem at all with a 'monopo...Hi Stephen,<BR/><BR/>I have no problem at all with a 'monopoly' that emerges from the cut and thrust of competition in a free marketplace, which is achieved purely by a companies own honest efforts in meeting and exceeding customer expectations so well that competing is difficult or impossible. <BR/><BR/>What possible objection could there be to such a benevolent enterprise?<BR/><BR/>What I'm opposed to is <I>coercive monopolies</I>, whose position in the market is maintained by government force, or government favour.<BR/><BR/>For more on the distinction, you might like to check out that link on monopolies I supplied: <A HREF="http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/05/cue-card-libertarianism-monopoly.html" REL="nofollow">Cue Card Libertarianism: Monopolies</A>.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-92153102776118613872008-08-01T16:35:00.000+12:002008-08-01T16:35:00.000+12:00Yep, good guess Richard. The answer is Dodger Rug...Yep, good guess Richard. The answer is Dodger Rugless, who set the damn thing up about the same time he floated the dollar.<BR/><BR/>With Douglas there was always one step forward, and another back.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61343375335113987302008-08-01T15:25:00.000+12:002008-08-01T15:25:00.000+12:00Sorry, should've said a reason behind the [appar...Sorry, should've said a <I> reason </I> behind the [apparent] thinking that a monopoly would be fine and dandy.StephenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08717556420960471541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-36426975222407988662008-08-01T15:23:00.000+12:002008-08-01T15:23:00.000+12:00I realise you probably have a strong opinion on th...I realise you probably have a strong opinion on this that i'm not aware of, but reading the post it seems that PC thinks a monopoly would be...fine and dandy?StephenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08717556420960471541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-16511224604859692042008-08-01T10:11:00.000+12:002008-08-01T10:11:00.000+12:00Hmm.... 1986 was during the Lange/Douglas Labour ...Hmm.... 1986 was during the Lange/Douglas Labour government, and I see David Caygill is on the Commission. I couldn't guess which one of Douglas, Prebble, or Caygill set it up, though. My guess is.. Prebble?<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/>RichardHeisenbughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09853011593271456367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-52016162886692304102008-08-01T09:11:00.000+12:002008-08-01T09:11:00.000+12:00Well said PC. Anything that is bad for producers -...Well said PC. Anything that is bad for producers - the wealth creators - IS bad for consumers. We rely on these innovators to provide us with things which improve our lives - and yet they are the ones that are punished. <BR/><BR/>Again, the government shows that they only possess the power to destroy wealth (witness the vandalism of the share price of The Warehouse yesterday) - rather than create wealth. Warehouse and Telecom shareholders know what that actually means. Of course most of them will still vote for parties which sanction their own persecutors...(sigh).<BR/><BR/>JulianJulianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11105977816595973510noreply@blogger.com