syncretic BS buster. Please in future DO NOT reply to my comments. I have noticed that YOU seem to get a lot of pleasure MOCKING people.
1 Like
There was no intention to mock in my last post at all, it was a way to approach the topic from another direction as the one we were on was not going anywhere. It looked OK to me to ask if you had some solution to the problem in mind.
The reason I often ask questions is to draw out what others are thinking, not to be difficult. I could always give my side first but that could be a complete waste of time if you are not thinking what I imagine.
Please consider also that this is a difficult medium, there is no tone of voice or facial expression to help work out intent or feeling. I find taking people fairly literally avoids too many misunderstandings.
You will see that some of my stuff is really silly, that may be mocking some external party or organisation (politicians are an easy target). If I have offended you I am sorry but I don’t know how I did it.
4 Likes
Thank you all for your commentary on the matter of Rip Off Food. Some ‘heat’ has recently been generated and so a cooling off period is now in place. If CHOICE decides this topic may be closed permanently, however the subject of rip off foods has some merit which with a cooling off may be still worthwhile to pursue.
This topic was automatically opened after 13 days.
In 1965 the UK established the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The structure and purpose of the board was fiddled with for a few years and then it was abolished in 1974. AFAIK there has been no price control in the UK since. It does look like the people of the UK were not keen on the scheme at all and are not keen now.
For the last 47 years there has been no general price control in the UK. Price control is rare around the world and has been found in a few countries, usually for a limited time and scope. Such schemes often apply to a small part of the economy such as rent. They are more popular during crisis especially wartime and can be paired with rationing. A common consequence is a black market which was the case with the UK during WW2.
Unless there are a great many price control schemes around the world that I cannot find it is not the case that Oz has been behind the rest of the world for 50 years because they do not exist.
5 Likes
There has been some indirect regulation of prices in the UK and Europe in recent years. I haven’t keep abreast of whether the UK has continued its scheme post-Brexit. Subsidises are paid to farmers to support particular farming sectors and to introduce ‘false’ economies so that farm products can compete with cheaper imports. The subsidies are supposed to place downward pressure on locally produced farm products, subject of the subsidies. Subsidies aren’t about managing profits, and there are many farmers who have benefitted financially from the subsidies.
In Australia, there has also been indirect regulation of pricing, many of which have now been abolished. A good example is dairy milk prices and quotas which were abolished/deregulated a few decades ago. The most recent one to be abolished was the regulation of potato growing in Western Australia.
In free markets, and trading internationally, regulated farm sectors/products distort the market and allow international competitors to take action under the World Trade Organisation for products imported from such countries.
3 Likes
Another price control mechanism that was abolished was the fixed dollar, with Keating and Hawke the dollar was floated.
4 Likes
Certainly a discussion that has moved on from the OP questioning the absolute value and desirability of Primo ‘Scrambles’ instant meal product. Should we note a second time the product was given a review on the ABC Gruen program. Overall it did not rate well with the panel, other than with Russel Howcroft who seemed to like the product. Russel in real life may be time poor but wealth assured. Well, the first was given as a reason the product would sell.
An Aside on Food Subsidies.
Australia provides substantial subsidies to agricultural production of food and non food products. That would be a different topic. They include benefits such as diesel fuel rebates through to flood and drought assistance. The latest gain is what many would call unfair exemptions from having to deliver reductions in GHG emissions. Stone the crows, or should that be shoot the cows?
1 Like
You have been listening to the Chinese. Claims about Australia subsidising have been dismissed by many (economists, academics, government agencies, industry) and I believe has been tested by the WTO, without any proven substantiation.
There has also been a trend lately for political activists to try and rewrite the traditional and widely accepted economic definition of subsidy to push particular agendas.
We are lucky in Australia that we have one of the largest range of foods and food ingredients (a lot we can thankfully thank our multicultural society). With such variety and range, we don’t have to buy products we don’t want to or like. We don’t have to buy products which are expensive, highly processed or unsatisfying to the palate. We are called the ‘lucky’ country for a reason.
1 Like
This is nothing to do with China, and has zero to do with this topic. I’m not sure how that conclusion can even be drawn.
I respect the OP and topic as original posted.
Why not split out the prior 4 or more posts that are not about the product or apparent value of similar products. Price regulation through to subsidies are all strategies to provide products at a lower cost or counter adverse conditions to support production. My reality is that Australian consumers do not pay for domestic production the true cost of production for many agricultural products. Under payment of farm workers is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is not a subsidy.
In relation to underpaying wages…there are a limited number of primary producers which have done the wrong thing and have been exposed. This does not indicate the problem is entrenched with all producers. The vast majority do the right thing.
The point of subsidy was raised as the OP made claims there was some sort of profiteering prevention legislation in the UK. Agricultural subsidies were common in the UK pre-Briexit and impacted on food industry economics. In reality, these subsidies were generous and have the inverse effect on the claims. The subsidies make food industries more profitable.
1 Like
Got it!
Not paying something is “not a subsidy”?
Many Australians differ on how subsidies should be measured. Some are pure economic rationalists who can only understand and measure capital.
There are other measures of national benefit that include more than wealth. Spiritual, social, health and environmental values are also measured. Are they valuable? Ask the tourism and hospitality industries. If we only valued wealth there would be no benefit gained in taking holidays. End of the industry that sells on these other values.
If Australia needs to continue to underpay it’s workforce to subsidise our great Aussie life style. What else should we call one portion of the community benefiting to a greater extent from effort than another?
Darwin in the natural world had a term for how this selection process worked. Economists have a different term. Economists are noted for not getting things right. No comment on Darwin’s credit ability required.
Back on topic.
The Primo Scrambles product might to an economic rationalist be a poor choice, or if time is money a great choice where the alternatives are limited. To someone more concerned about the health outcomes or not financially able or able to appreciate food it’s likely a poor choice. No subsidy required, although making a better choice might reduce the profits of those selling or invested in the Primo brand. One way to reduce personally subsidising the lifestyle choices of others?
