Mangled Thoughts

Centre for Independent Studies are not the only outfit running on flawed economics. Neither does it suffice to only finger also the Institute of Public Affairs and the HR Nicholls Society, and rather too many holding precious Liberal Party seats in Federal and State’s Parliaments.

If it were only a matter of buffoons playing at economics, there would be an end of it. Oh, apart from irritated Liberal Party members groaning under the deadweight of ‘nincompoops’. The root problem is the fiction of perfect competition. Hayek nailed it, concluding that it is no competition at all. Why? It’s a fiction; it does not exist.

It’s not only a “Rightwing” affliction. It is ground into every economics undergraduate in Australia. It is rote learned, textbook bound dogma. Sadly, as is all too apparent, not many, very few indeed, intellectually matured and escaped the great myth they are rooted in.

In the core textbooks:

1. Eckert and Leftwich assert that it is the logical starting point and analysis of action.

2. As also, Begg Fischer Rudiger and Dornbusch.

Interestingly, Begg abandoned perfect competition when one telling absurdity dawned on him : it is also the justification for destruction - the breaking up of firms by coercion in the name of ensuring ‘perfect competition’. Or, what in the US is called ‘trust busting’, reinforced by the ‘anti- trust’ Sherman Act.

Fittingly for a fiction, perfect competition involves a hornets’ nest of fallacies, such as horizontal demand curves. To the contrary, all demand curves slope down and no exception has been found to this fact. The central point is, it is not theory, explanation in economics; it’s a fantasy.

It is unfortunate that it was raised as ‘mainstream’ economics, because of the force of what that means. The upshot is not only failure in economics. Great damage has been caused on great matters, and continues to be caused because of it. The CIS’ position on Co2 taxation is another rotten instance of this record of failure.

The above is given as a general statement. It will sharpened as required in other items. For now, that it is orthodoxy in Australia points to why there is no debate and cut and thrust and why debate is suppressed.

Honest debate does entail those committed to the fiction having to face up to itty bitty difficulty that their intellectual foundation is quicksand. The killer is, perfect competition has been demolished. This sets up something nasty for the work shy in the CIS, IPA, and HR Nicholls Society, rectifying fundamental spadework is required.

The Centre for Independent Studies refusal to answer for its disgraceful lobbying for Co2 taxation is understandable. It has hung itself, and has retreated behind its steel doored, bolted, clubrooms. There’s an interesting snippet to this. What of Sinclair Davidson?

Monday and Tuesday were filled with interesting irritations needing attention. The hiccups over, a couple of things this week are noteworthy, one for a separate item. Is it true, as reported early Monday morning, that ex-Prime Ministerial “wannabe” and another great, unprincipled, Liberal Party wrecker John Hewson is a front man for interests hoping to make squillions out of, surprise, surprise, Co2 taxation?

Hewson was also reported as saying kyoto compliance will generate a flood of jobs and make all Australians wealthy? I suppose he means all will become wealthy bankers, lawyers, and ‘alternative energy’ con artists. Noting, as the Centre for Independent Studies, the absurdity involved in the notion that in mass economic destruction, through Co2 taxation lies economic progress and growth. This is the metaphorical ‘war is good’ fallacy.

Hewson was hailed by the left dominated media Monday morning as a leading economist. Well, the Centre for Independent Studies, Institute of Public Affairs, and the HR Nicholls Society do rate themselves as distinguished economists. The diseased Left dominated media, for some obscure reason, don’t care to disabuse neither the public nor them.

The question to answer is: do the venal brigade Hewson is lobbying for also pay the CIS to campaign for Co2 taxation? Having identified at least two conflicts of interests that hang the CIS, how many more are there involved with the CIS, interests seeking to enrich themselves by demolishing millions of Australians? It’s a question that must be answered.

Given what is at stake, the antics of the CIS and their two fan clubs is revealed for how scandalously contemptuous they are of Australians. What have they been whining about? Criticism of what they are campaigning for. The callousness and narcissism is revealed in full daylight: they don’t give a damn about what the impact will be for millions of Australians. What really counts is themselves. It hurts them that their position is demonstrated to be the pack of fallacies it is and worse. Lobbying for it, they are also deceiving the Liberal Party, Party members, and Australians.

As for the good Professor Sinclair Davidson, we shall break up the concern here into two, the second in a separate item, which is the next item to be posted today. First off, then, Davidson seems strangely loathe to publish an article in which he debates Jackson’s criticism of the CIS position, as parroted through the Humphreys paper.

It is to be noted again, Davidson’s ‘blind alley’ complaint, ‘Jackson mistreated Humphreys’. Why the blind, Sinclair? No, it couldn’t be true? To smear Jackson and deflect attention from the arguments put by Jackson?

How could have Davidson overlooked: There was no ad-hominem attack against Humphreys in Jackson’s articles. Jackson criticised the ‘economic arguments’ put in the position-lobbying paper.

Davidson, it seems, holds to a novel notion of intellectual engagement. Cut and thrust, and incisive incineration of, flawed, bad, and worse propositions are nasty habits. These days it is, no doubt, intrinsically a ‘hate crime’. This runs against the history of not only economics, but also science, law, theology, philosophy, history, and archeology. Not much progess was ever made when nonsense and rubbish have been passed, except for a mere quibbling at the edges.

What makes Davidson’s objection genuinely unconscionable is, it is not merely a debate over theory. It is a debate about a proposition, Co2 taxation, which is staggering in its impact should it be imposed. It is inverted immorality to whine against anyone who makes the effort to apply the blow torch to this and, indeed, any proposition an Executive - the Cabinet, is contemplating imposing. Is Davidson asserting that any proposal contemplated by the Executive, even a good proposal, should not be scrutinised and debated in public?

Does Sinclair recognise the incipiently absolutist force of that strange notion? Does he hold, as many of the scrofulous “Right” do, the man in Australia should merely obey a self annointed ‘elite’, rather than be presented with principled justifications that they might support? The economic illiterates of the HR Nicholls Society took this approach on Labour Market reform, and the voters told them to “get stuffed”.

Having also remarked on Davidson’s snide and false dismissal of Jackson’s standing as an economist, here’s another challenge:

Noting Davidson’s credulist belief in credentialism:

I challenge Professor Davidson to enquire of Dr. Frank Shostak, who held a University Chair in economics. I challenge Professor Davidson to ask Dr. Shostak for his assessment of Jackson’s work in economics, and his evaluation of Jackson as an economist. This is besides all the other references one cited in the last item on the scandalous conduct of the good Professor Sinclair Davidson.

So, two challenges are issued and the betting is, all ‘can whistle Dixie until the cows come home’. Then, is it not true Professor Davidson, along with your Rightie clunker tank, anti-free market pals, it’s never been anything but about smearing Jackson’s reputation as a genuine free market reputation? The reason why, is pretty well summed up above, and also that this pack of parasites can’t be exposed for shallowness - bang goes the unearned revenues and pay.

Oh, Jackson isn’t the only talent they have attempted to bury, which will be expanded upon in another item. Attempted is, of course, not the same as succeeding, and this distinction also upsets “Sinkers” Sinclair, the Centre for Independent Studies and, at that, also the Institute of Public Affairs, and the HR Nicholls Society.

However, Sinclair, there is now many who can’t wait to see your masterpiece in rebuttal of Jackson’s strictly economic analysis and criticism of what the CIS laid out through the Humphreys paper. A published paper, Sinclair, out in the open, over the Internet. If it is effortless to do as the impression you convey of it is, this should be a rather painless exercise for you.

You aren’t telling readers you are afraid, are you Sinclair? After all the put-downs and bon-mots you have littered comments boxes on other sites with, showing you are supremely confident of the CIS position and your capacity to defend it, isn’t it niggardly, Sinclair to refuse to do what you demonstrate you are willing to do? Why refuse readers what they are excitedly anticipating; a solid, sustained response demonstrating, as you keep on banging on about, Jackson has got it wrong?

I defy anyone to call Sinclair a coward. It is plain he is not. It is plain he has delayed publication of his rebuttal for all to read over the Internet, because he has taken great pains to prepare a real treat in the neatest, most soundly, rigorously argued paper in economics written for some time.

A paper of such aesthetic quality even the layman could not fail to acknowledge the prowess, the mastery and incisiveness of Sinclair’s formidable genius. A genius heightened, as he appears to boast of, by him being a ‘professional economist’ and no mere rank amateur. Indeed, with such a list of qualities, I wonder how I could have under-estimated Sinclair. Only one conclusion is possible:

Sinclair will put up, because if he can’t then it is obvious:

He has a bit of repair work, such as issuing very public apologies, and generally undoing a great deal of damage caused by his ‘Rightie’ pals that he has, so far, been a willing party to.

Surely such a decent and courageous Professor, as Sinclair must be, fully appreciates why all the above is the decent thing for a good professor to do? That he sees his public duty and will do it?

Greg Lindsay and his Centre for Independent Studies are having a major breakdown. It’s sad really, they are ruining their comfy clubrooms. Good and they brought it upon themselves.

What has tipped them over the edge from their ususal whining, stamping their feet, screaming and sobbing, is obvious. Exposure for what they stand for and are through the looking glass of their full support and lobbying for the economic destruction of Australians through Co2 taxes. They tipped themselves over the edge the day they crossed the line and became lobbyists for larcenous parasites.

It must be repeated that these actions, including of those paying for the campaign, entails violations of the tax. Violations carry prison sentences. It is easy to spot, so it can be safely assumed the ATO have. Targets usually discover the ATO are after them only when they are hauled before a judge and sentenced to the University of Criminals.

Bye the bye, the Business Council of Australia has broken ranks with the Right’s clunker tanks CIS and IPA. They probably threw Hugh Morgan overboard too, noting Hugh ‘the WMC atomic bomb’ Morgan, and Ron ‘the lurching Ronnie’ Walker also hope to make squillions out of Co2 tax destruction day (these two are consistent). This morning the BCA came out and declared, ‘Carbon taxes will destroy companies Australia wide.’ I suppose the CIS could try to tell the BCA Co2 taxes are ‘costless’, if they fancy having their heads torn off.

Greg Lindsay and the CIS are twisted, as well as brainless, to deny science and economics in the fight against Co2 taxes and the excuse for it, the diseased Greens’ lies. Malicious also in smearing those who had the hide to point out what is wrong with their position. Abandonment by the BCA adds a comic touch. The deranged entombed in their clubrooms they soaked donors mulit-millions for.

It might be a lonely feeling, publicly exposure for intellectual fraud in economics and science. Shame, however, doesn’t disturb them. This, shame, however, doesn’t disturb them.

It is a mixture of hubris, resentment, bitterness, schizophrenia, anger, and thwarted venality, that shows out. To cap it off, the ATO breathing down their necks. This is a recipe for a hideous, tremendous breakdown and the CIS and Greg Lindsay are full of it. So are the IPA and the HR Nicholls Society in all but the ATO respects. Consequently, Lindsay blew the bottom of the barrel to find Humphreys to do his dirty work on Co2 taxes. And, dredged up a troll club, Catallaxy and the ALS, to make him and the CIS feel important, good, loved, and to mount a non-existent defence.

They, the troll club, are the same as diseased Leftists Quiggin and Lambert and their trolls. They wield rubber knives and use them, fishwives blowing bubbles and sticking their tongues out on various sites. Why, we have been treated to another titbit of little girls training to be vicious fishwives in action, Ess and.

Not, though, to grumble. To the contrary, they have delivered a pleasant surprise. These guys go out to what they call hunting and stab their noses every time. Lindsay and the CIS are in the middle of a very big crack up to rely on clowns like these hissing ‘poody cats’.

Ess has kindly comments by the good Professor Sinclair Davidson. What backstabbing, snide remarks Davidson has fathomed this time? Are they his typical raspberries or a truly ingeniously infantile chunder? What a surprise.

Davidson, a-typically, has finally acknowledged Mr. Jackson’s superiority in economics, though snidely, smearingly, grudgingly conceded as his statement shows:

“he has no professional qualifications, no professional affiliations and no professional publications. He is, at best, a gifted amateur - and a fine amateur he is too.”

Firstly, though unable to say what degree, it is certain from his articles Jackson went up to University and read economics.It is also obvious he didn’t stop there, and became the fine economist he is today. He is recognised internationally as theoretician and leading exponent of Austrian school economics. In addition the ACTU acknowledges Jackson is formidable and this is why they fear him, unlike the clowns in the clunk tanks. The ILO hold Jackson is essential reading. But wait, there’s more recognition:

Economists I correspond with and since Sinker ‘the sinking man’ Davidson is impressed by credentialism, they have Phds, are forthright about Jackson’s work, the esteem it and him too. I have met others in very serious positions, and the uncanny thing is they have all remarked they find him incisive:

“Jackson has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of a matter…”

And sort it out accurately and swiftly. Indeed he is, as this example shows:

Liberal Government and labour market reform: more fallacious attacks

It is as well to recollect seminal advances in theory were made by men without degrees and those with but not in economics. Keynes produced his poison having expended all of a single term of lectures in economics.

It is awfully decent of Sinclair Davidson to concede Jackson is intellectually formidable in economics. It is rare for amateurs, no matter how brilliant, to lead in a field. It takes work, application, matched by depth and breadth, virtues the CIS, IPA and HR Nicholls are devoid of - and these crippling defects have been remarked on by very serious people I am acquainted with. They are virtues Jackson is fully possessed of, as his work shows.

Still unable to help himself, Sinclair threw this gem in:

“His response to Humphreys was unacceptably poor - reflecting his amateur status…”

What’s the matter, Sinkers? Upset stomach over Jackson demolishing the CIS pack of lies, put through Humphreys, effortlessly, from Austrian capital theory? If, as you say, it is ‘poor’, then you must demonstrate why, in public. It wouldn’t be a surprise if Jackson let you publish a rebuttal on Brookesnews on where Jackson’s analysis is wrong. He’s let others reply on his site (only to demolish them all over again).

It is clear why Professor ‘Sinkers’ Sinclair won’t confront Jackson directly. It’s called cowardice. All that is seen of Sinkers is him running around sites doing nothing but trying to damage Jackson’s reputation as an economist. What sort of “Professor” does this, sacrificing truth and honesty with it?

Sinclair then writes:

“his spear-carriers have further undermined his previously good reputation as a commentator by their silliness.”

Smears, now lies. I, for one, have not met Jackson. My attack on, for example, Co2 taxation and the disgusting CIS fraud, has melded Austrian economics and case studies. This is a different approach to Jackson’s, who is arguing strictly from within solid economic theory.

He happens to also bring it to bear for the benefit of the public in his articles. The HR Nicholls Society, IPA, and CIS are such cowards they even refuse to account for themselves to the man in the street. They run away. Instead, they lickthe boots of the diseased Left dominated media, put risible ’submissions’ to Parliamentary Committees and unheard outside, and which in sum state “We are here to see Australians drink all the arsenic the government can pump out.’ This is a very strange notion of fighting the Left and advancing good causes.

Then, this lot cannot fight good causes. They destroyed the campaign for labour market reform. They discredit the free market cause in general, effortlessly. They claim to be experts on Hayek and show how illiterate they are on Hayek and perforce the Austrian school.

As for Humphreys, he is on the same wavelength as Andrew Andy Pandy Kemp and Chris the Castroingo Kid, pulseless. The CIS-Humphreys paper is as excruciatingly bad as the garbage pumped out by these two unfused bulbs. Indeed, the only reason why I bothered with the Humphreys paper is that it is the CIS position and spring for its lobby campaign.

Jackson’s treatment of the lobby paper was, in my books, extremely generous to a pack of thugs acting as lobbyists for a pack of bastards. A pack of gibbering soakers who give a stuff about destroying Australians through carbon taxation.

In his feeble efforts to defend the CIS, Davidson smeared Jackson. However what does it disclose about this ‘good professor’ that he defends the intellectually indefensible, and a crew of larcenous parasites who don’t give a stuff about destroying Australians? Davidson’s concern for poor Humpers is inverted morality.

Hmmm, to check again, if Jackson were a mere amateur, besides his mastery of theory, how could Jackson have delivered a thorough demolition of the Berg-Kemp pack of flies called “Islam and the Free Market”, in an excellent survey of the history of economic thought? Oh, this still hurts Davidson, and given that one also ripped into Berg-Kemp, I enjoyed demolishing it all over again when these bright sparks proceeded to make the same claim about the history of philosophy and theology. It was unforgettable reading Sinclair pleading to Amir to never refer to it again.

Now, I simply cannot help myself, but I recall a Sinclair Davidson – Castroingo Kid Berg paper. The measure of how bad it is distilled in one superficial sentence declaring production is nothing more than ‘making things’, mere little home cottage industry that won’t be missed if wiped out. In this paper, they pressed again the demand for destruction through Co2 taxation.

We have a real problem today, the fascist Kevin Rudd Cabinet and it’s lust for central planning. The Davidson –Berg reflects why, over the decades, the ignorant Right have caused great damage and paved the way for Kevin Rudd and his fascist gangsters. Then, there is Jackson’s demolition of that junk.

That is the best Greg Lindsay and the Centre for Independent Studies can manage in their defence? Whining fishwives wielding plastic knives behind the backs of their betters? Who else would be stupid enough, apart from the diseased Left, to go into bat for measures that will destroy Australians and Australia? Right now, it is Rudd and his Cabinet of fascists and the treacherous Left who love these bastards. In the meant-time, how is the lobby business looking now, Greg Lindsay?

That’s it for this week. Concentrating on the CIS this week has been no indulgence. The reasons why are glaringly obvious. Not that we shall desist. To the contrary, we will stitch them up again next week when attending to other matters, such as Kevin Rudd’s lust for grand central planning, and how this pack of psychopathic morons found themselves in Government.

To Anon, not forgotten next response to your last. Will also put it up next week.

Happy weekend Lindsay.

It was put as a question in the article, Centre for Independent Studies are lobbyists? (20/8/08).

The evidence is incontrovertible but, because of the implications, it was proper to give Greg Lindsay to say to the contrary.
Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs are treated as charities and thus protected against taxation. This treatment also means they are free to make profit in certain types of investments at a very small percentage of a tax rate, if any tax. This a nasty irony since they wish to wipe out the capital entirely of many companies via Co2 taxation. Naturally, donors enjoy full tax deductibility for their contributions. The amusing thing is, the Lobby business is a business, and so not tax sheltered at all.

The inference is stark naked. Both the CIS and donors, on whose behalf they are lobbying for the imposition of Co2 taxes, are in breech of the tax regime. It follows that an ATO criminal investigation into all of them is a prospect Lindsay and those ‘donors’ now face.

This item, curiously enough, does a kindness to Greg Lindsay. Doing the CIS a kindness is not even in my vocabulary. Ah! the twists and turns of outrageous misfortune. If, after all, one can draw such inferences, so can the Australian Tax Office.

The Australian tax regime, and how it is enforced is hideous, with real entrepreneurs running real firms being targeted and then treated as the most dangerous criminals in Australia by ATO, and Judges who no longer give a stuff about their real duties to Australians. The ATO spies into affairs none of its bleeding business long before the victims find out (when they are suddenly on the receiving of stasi-land, pseudo-criminal charges and a gang of heavies shoving their fists into their victims’ faces). However, an ATO investigation into the CIS and the interests it serves by lobbying for Co2 taxation is an exception: it won’t disturb me, unlike ATO’s persecution of genuinely productive enterprises, their owners and entrepreneurs driving them.

This is what Gregg Lindsay gets for taking on cretins as his guns, and then lobbying for the economic destruction of millions of Australians for the benefit of a very few larcenous parasites:

A heap of trouble Lindsay was blind to and is still blind to, and it shows. If he were brighter than he is, he would not have crossed the line. Now he has to look over his shoulder to spot whether the ATO is running after him with a hatchet.

There isn’t much point in him turning to the interests he’s lobbying for. These treacherous, larcenous bastards don’t give a stuff about him either. Besides, now that the penny is dropping, they will soon enough, if they are not already, be trying to hide from the ATO too.

PS. It occurred to me long before that there are real problems and did publish indirect warnings on this site. Not only the CIS, but interests behind the horrendous, criminal Co2 tax scam obviously chose to ignore them. How stupid are they? Since they are still diving to the bottom of the ocean, it is impossible to tell.

Not that this is rare for Bolt, and the problem is:

Andrew Bolt damages great causes, because he doesn’t bother with those who can set him straight.

Pratt is not a criminal. He doesn’t bash up old grannies, threaten others with violence, nor does he defraud anyone. All in all, he’s a thoroughly decent man who happens to be a successful entrepreneur. He is a pratt though, but for entirely different reasons:

- Embracing the Green’s lie of global warming and trying to make Visy compliant with their cultic ‘environmental demands’ is a major mistake that is damaging and not only to his company. The reason for this problem is the same as why for no reason at all he has been put through a wringer by Samuel and the ACCC:

- Instead of surrounding himself with PR flunkeys, clueless in economics lawyers and, perhaps, relying on advice from the screwballs in the IPA and CIS, he needs guns to advise him and fight the ACCC.

Perfect competition is the assumption of the politicians, their advisers, apparatchiks and bureaucrats. It is the assumption of the risible Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Under Fels, the ACCC, as Brookesnews reported on, fined a small trucking firm, then newly formed, for establishing an ‘illegal’ cartel’. Perfect Competition is the pin of ‘trust-busting’. What is this?

Breaking up efficient firms, eliminating genuine competition, and also as a protectionist measure as in the case of the US Sherman Act. The US Stalinist Democrats resorted to this ‘Act’ in a brazen attempt to break up Microsoft.

What also does not occur to Bolt is, ‘anti-trust’ - ‘anti-monopolistic ‘law’, besides an assault on efficient firms and investors’ capital employed in them, is also an attack on consumers. It’s an attempt to destroy production of goods consumers demand, in quantities they demand, and at prices they value them. It is not a measure that improves competition but destroys it. Everyone, Bolt, ends up the poorer for it.

There is, certainly in Australia, an element of schizophrenia involved, reflected in the ACCC’s pursuit of also major supermarket chains and oil companies (viz fuel):

1. Companies should be punished for ‘predatory pricing’. The line is : companies that supply at prices lower than others do (can) are engaged in predatory pricing to knock out other firms. The problem with this is, predatory pricing would mean companies are running at loss. This does mean:

Companies knock out competitors by liquidating their own capital. That’s right, they achieve the feat by destroying themselves. Shareholders don’t hire entrepreneurs to do this. They hire entrepreneurs to serve customers and that means employing capital efficiently as stated above.

2. Companies are to be pursued if they are deemed to be extracting high prices. Higher than what, pray tell? Samuel and all those addicted to ‘perfect competition’ have no grounds to say what is pure economic profit.

Besides, if such profits occur entrepreneurs enter and knock out pure economic profit. The assumption has nothing to do with the market processes by which goods are priced. It is capricious. Secondly, it means companies again make profit by extinguishing capital - capital is sunk in market decided scale, but then they proceed to cut production in order to make profit.

3. From perfect competition, suppliers must act blind. The perfect competition brigade doesn’t see that this too contains an obvious lunacy: Prices are signals for entrepreneurs and investors in allocating capital, and to discover what to do and how to do it. By the same token, entrepreneurs will not drive capital into production of certain goods if an existing firm(s are) is already doing the job - not unless they wish to wipe out what they are entrusted to drive, capital.

4. From perfect competition, concentration (how many firms in a market) defines whether it is competitive. This is why, presumably, breaking up large, efficient firms makes markets more competitive:

Once you have every man and his dog producing, say, bottles in their living room, then the market is competitive. This was done under Mao, with horrifying force for the victims of this thug and his henchmen. What Samuel also desires is a great leap backwards.

These notions are truly bizarre that it is difficult to understand how supposedly rational adults could ever entertain them. Then again, they do hold to the root falsehood of perfect competition.

A competitive market is one in which entry is free. Governmet doesn’t hamper it with ‘regulations’ and other burdens, including overt taxes, that act as barriers to entry. There it is, only Government can impose monopolies and monopolistics markets. This is why until the 1930’s monopoly was never discussed; all knew why they can occur, government coercion only, never in free markets. Perhaps Samuel should pursue the Government.

Turning to Samuels:

In December 2005 the ACCC pursued Pratt for entering ‘cartel’ arrangements with Amcor.

In October 2007, ACCC accused Richard Pratt of price fixing, cheating customers and companies of approximately $700 million through cartel arrangements with Amcor. In other words, defrauding many Australians.

Slater and Gordon are using the ACCC’s number to pursue Visy and Pratt. Apart from a mystic ball, there is no basis for this figure. But then the defrauding accusation is entirely baseless anyway.

The ACCC then proceeded to assert that Amcor, Visy, and Pratt are guilty of breaches of ‘law’ and concealed their hideous crimes. Except for one thing, they did no such thing, and legalese is not the rule of common law, contrary to that statist ignoramus Peter Costello.

The ACCC then asserted Pratt lied to them, though they in fact supplied no evidence of this. We see Pratt’s real crime: he didn’t stand up before this star chamber and orate a ‘confession’. This is Australia, not Maoist China.

For the rest of the explanation, all one has to do is cite a couple of articles, one includes a shocking case study. Though, the persecution of Pratt, Visy, and Amcor is also thoroughly disgusting. It is another tribute to the witless illiterates of the comatose “Right” and their clunker tanks the Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs, whose capacity for entertaining the bizarre has no limit.

Anti-merger laws are bad for the Australian economy, Mr Barnaby Joyce

A good way of looking at mergers is to study cartels. Let us, for instance, go back to 2000 when the express trucking company McPhee and four of its executives were fined $4 million in a federal court for price collusion. The charges had been brought by Professor Alan Fels…

What Fels and Samuel treat as wicked is volitional actions, which bring costs down and makes firms more efficient and this means lowering prices. Today, Brookesnews has an aticle up addressing the ACCC’s and Samuel’s persecution of Pratt:

Monopoly and free markets: the ACCC’s Graeme Samuel gets it wrong

Jackson gives a sharp contrast between Fels and Samuel on the one hand, and George Stigler who was once addicted to the perfect competition fiction. Stigler had an epiphany, and rebuilt his intellectual foundations as an economist. Jackson draws out more bizarre contradictions the perfect competition fiction entails and in terms of its extension, monopolies and cartels.

WIthout realising it, in joining the ‘let’s get Pratt’ hysteria, Bolt is also calling for the overthrow of free market action and, with it, damaging consumers considerably.

Samuel is also engaged in a witchhunt against oil companies and supermarket chains. The second is also being driven by protectionists mounting a vicious campaign which also damages consumers. This is another attack on consumers who support what the chains are doing by shopping in their stores.

On the announcement of Samuel as head of the ACCC, he was enthustically praised by mainstream media economic commentators as, in contrast to Fels, coming with solid business experience. They are wrong. He wasn’t an entrepreneur. He was an administrator in business, that is, an accountant.

If Samuel believes he can do better by customers than the chains, oil and supermarket, he should convince investors with a solid case to back him in a new chain. I would be most amused by this, as there is quite a bit involved but:

It is driven by discovering what customers want, uncovering producers who can meet it and these are only two elements of entrepreneuership in the retail chain business. There is nothing to conclude other than the chains are serving customers, and are competitive. Serving customers is the priority and this has a blunt edge to it too: lose them and the business dies, quickly. Abuse of customers is the forte of meddlers and hangers on, and not entepreneurs.

Of course, Samuel cannot put risk - his money, where his mouth is. [For some odd reason, to suspect, investor’s would also baulk at entrusting their funds to him.] He knows he would be a great loss to Government as one of its super unero Meddlers.

With the above out, there is only one outstanding matter, Bolt’s vicious backhanders to Pratt and Jews. This will be the subject of Pt.III.