Many thanks for those replies SSR.

As is so often the case, after a few exchanges of posts it becomes evident that people are not as far apart in their views as what might appear to be the case at first glance. I think that we are probably very much in agreement.

By the way, I think that in the past when we were (apparently) not so much in agreement, I made some rather rude remarks. I would like to apologize for that.

I’ve just been reminded by the lead item in today’s Crikey Worm the idea our government might do its job by taxing and regulating effectively is laughable, with Labor minister King boasting her party will do anything for the extractive industry corporations, while Dutton insists he will do much more than that if he’s in power. ‘Business friendly’ is quite inadequate to describe how completely the major parties are controlled by the corporations. This is a dereliction of duty and such grossly irresponsible conduct that neither party should be allowed anywhere near power.

Finally, I would rather read Karl Marx than Adam Smith.

I came close to quoting Marx also because he had plenty to say about the positive aspects of capitalism. Both he and Smith saw its problems too; our problem these days is that neoliberalism has turned into an irrational cult that worships the super-wealthy and regards them as gods who must not be restrained by rules or taxes.

That is how the system is designed to work. If capitalists A and B decide to do the right thing and put the environment and people before profit, then you can be sure that capitalist C will come along with other ideas.

No argument. That’s my point; the government has to make sure the capitalists operate within laws and regulations that prevent capitalist C, in recognition that the ‘free market’ needs to operate within acceptable limits. It has to be regulated. A ‘business friendly’ government that refuses to do its jobs is a disaster. To the examples you’ve given, I’ll add the findings of the Grenfell fire inquiry, where the UK’s government’s ‘bonfire of red tape’ led directly to dozens of deaths as unregulated companies sold lethally dangerous products with impunity once the rules were scrapped.

Yeah, this from one of the team utterly bent on serving us all up to the parasite class, bound and gagged, to be pillaged in every orifice.

One day we’ll get to the point where people realise how radical it has been to cling to the ‘sensible’ status quo… So long after the horse has bolted that its grandchildren are pushing up daisies.

But Jetstar and Qantas don’t compete at all. As said elsewhere they are the same company with two different products attracting different sections of the market on routes they both fly, and attracting totally different demographics on markets they fly individually. And routes are selected carefully. The recent withdrawal of DeathStar from the Melbourne-Honolulu route is a case in point. Softer demand than Sydney-Honolulu (interesting as SYD-HNL is served by three carriers, Qantas, Jetstar, and Hawaiian) so not much money to be made with a partly full B787 on Jetstar’s thin margins. Send it back to big sister, smaller A330, higher load factor, higher fares, all hunky dory. And that B787? Said to be redeployed on a new Asian route, although I suspect Perth-Johannesburg might also be a possibility.

That’s the whole purpose of Jetstar. To attract those prepared to endure a bus ride instead of a limo to get to their destination, and funnel the funds into the same money bin at the end of the day. Far better to serve both segments of the market and not have to worry to much about about loosing on overall revenue. Jetstar simply exists to stop a true LCC arising to compete aggressively against Qantas. And given it was supported to maturity by it’s rich sibling it now has the economy of scale that other startups simply never have the ability to ever reach in order to survive long term.

And Virgin exists precariously in between the two. And if it goes too far towards the turf on either side of it then it gets whacked from the other direction.

Just one more of Spud’s Duds.

We seem to live in a wet suit of false importance – when we are actually a very small player (population wise) living in a vast and sparsely populated land.

Our population is 2/3 of California ( which is about 11% of USA’s population). We are 6% USA’s population.

So our companies CANT BE WORLD SCALE , so divesting will make them less competitive. Look at Ansett, Compass, Rex, Bonza and ask why.

Compare our dairy industry with NZ – with the same
Land area and population as Victoria.

NZ consolidated their industry with stipulations that competitors could get milk – raw material – at equal prices / cost. Fonterra is world scale and competitive. Milk production has increased from 10 billion litres (year 2000) to 20 billion litres.

Australia will not allow consolidation and divested support structures and research. Australia’s milk production since year 2000 has DROPPED from 11.3 billion litres to 8 billion litres while demand has increased.

I am not convinced that divesting is a good strategy.

We must consider our population and population density when making business decisions.