|
February 26, 2003
There is an interesting paragraph in the Crikey.com newsletter of 21 Feb that is built around this article in The Age. The paragraph exposes the myth of Australia as the land of free market capitalism. It says:
"Is there another country which has so many dominant players in different
industries? Rupert has 70 per cent of the newspaper market, Westfield has 40 per cent of shopping centres, Telstra makes 90 per cent of the telco industry profits, the Big Four banks now dominate the entire financial services industry, Qantas has 70 per cent of the domestic aviation market and even Foster's and Lion Nathan have a duopoly over the beer industry."
I thought that the whole point of the neo-liberal mode of governance was to create competitive marketplace nor the concentration of economic power? Competition brings efficiency. Remember that mantra from the boosters? A competitive marketplace that had broken free from past constaints was to be the upside of globalization in that competition would deliver economic growth.
So where is the competition? Where are the bright, free-market economists calling for the bust up of the big companies in the name of competition between small, freewheeling, non-bureaucratic companies that maximize creativity and linked together in decentralised networks? Was not the creative, innovative entrepreneur who started off in his garage with nothing but his talents and self-confidence the big answer to poverty and inequality?
|
my sentiments precisely. what people think of as a free market really just amounts to dominant players bullying the small ones or killing them off completely. it's hardly survival of the fittest, just survival of biggest. some competition.
not forgetting how the GST has killed off a lot of small businesses too.