|
July 2, 2003
I had though the Institute of Public Affairs was a reasonable policy institute. Right wing for sure, but willing to argue its case in public. But this piece from Mike Nahan, its director, is bad. Its main argument is okay:
"PROFESSOR Allan Fels' legacy is that of a populist technocrat who promoted the popularity of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at the cost of public support for market-based competition."
There is something to argue about. Now consider the language used in the next paragraph:
'His central flaw was to succumb to the lure of populism. He read the tea leaves of popular dissent and seldom let pass an opportunity to demonise big business, particularly those of a multinational nature in "political incorrect industries"'.
The whole article has phrases such as "instead of praising the workings of the market, he took cheap shots to pander to populist sentiment"; and "sought the political support of the so-called consumer movement".
Fels played politics as he saw the public demand for a competition tsar and interfered too often.This was bad because he should have pursued the task of assisting market-driven competition to the advantage of the consumer.
What can we make of this? We consumers should accept the benign workings of the competitive market, nor stir up dissent about the need for tough regulators to deal with the fallout of the market or uncompetitive behaviour. Our proposals as citizens amount to populist sentiment (prejudiced emotion) and should be dismissed as undemocratic. So we should allow, and accept, that the big corporations should rule our lives through the market whilst trusting the markets to do their thing.
That is politics in favour of keeping the lid on popular dissent and crushing the consumer movement and not public policy.
Gareth parker appears to be supportive of the man from the IPA.
|
How on earth could you draw that conclusion, Gary?