Hey, I didn’t say they were my buddies, I just admitted that they pay me to stand up for them on the internet. Stop misquoting me!

BBB

A. The ACCC has stood by and allowed a vibrant and competitive supermarket food retailing industry to degenerate into a duoply.
B. The ACCC has never tried to stop this happening.
C. The ACCC is a government department who publicly says that it is not there to look at individual competitors, it is there to look at competition, and in doing so publicly admits that it cares nothing for the individual independant retailer.
D. The ACCC has allowed a total monopoly in grocery wholesalers in Australia to develop from five grocery wholesalers in 1993, down to just one by 2008.
E. The ACCC does not believe that there should be any changes made to the Trade Practices Act to curb ‘geographical price gouging’.
F. The ACCC thinks that it is OK for the MSC to drop their prices to “price gouge” the competition into submission, even if it makes that particular store unprofitable, and be able to increase prices elsewhere to offset that loss.
G. The ACCC even thinks that its OK to manipulate cost of stock prices to each store so that the loss or excessive profit can be hidden.
H. The ACCC thinks that it is quite OK for the MSC to abuse their market power by engageing in “trading terms” from suppliers which are not only unavailable to all, but which give them an unfair advantage in competition.
I. The ACCC does not think that the “market area” should be defined in food retailing, and most certainly does not think that “price gouging” the competition into submission is in anyway wrong.
J. The ACCC has proven itself to be an unashamed supporter of “the big end of town” to the detriment of small business.
K. As far as food retailing is concerned, The Trade Practices Act 1974 is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, the ACCC a useless piece of furniture, and Mr Samuels an impostor and disgrace to the word “competition”.
L. The ACCC and the Rudd government have the chance to right some wrongs at the moment. Without a doubt, the discussion on supermarket domination in food retailing will never be an issue again, it’s old news, and the people who it affects will probably not bother again. They are small business people, the backbone of Australian business, and they are the people who the ACCC, the Government and the media have abandoned.
M. Australia must be the laughing stock of the retailing world. Concentration of market power is encouraged in this country. Our advertisements to overseas business should be “COME TO AUSTRALIA! OUR GOVERNMENT HAS LAWS TO HELP YOU BECOME A MONOPLY!!

Both!

As for pseudo-intellectual bullshit, well…

“Mr. Samuels, and Alan Fels before him, know this and have not made any reccommendations to have the “market area” defined, and for very good reasons. They know that their buddies, “the MSC”, would be liable for prosecution under section 46 for ‘abuse of market power’ almost every day with their constant tactic of ‘geographical price gouging.’”

It is not for the ACCC to define the relevant market – that is for the Federal Court to decide. Of course, the ACCC doesn’t mind telling us all its opinion on this – see, for example, this public competition assessment: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/808640/fromItemId/751046). The ACCC routinely defines grocery markets narrowly. So you’ve screwed that one up pretty comprehensively. For good measure you’ve shoehorned in a conspiracy theory. You know, some try to talk the talk, but don’t quite get there. I’d put you into that category. Others, like me, have a clue (now THAT is intellectual snobbery).

I think we’d better leave it there, mate. Neither of us are going to budge on this one.

Cheers
BBB

It is very obvious to me BBB that you do not know anything about “abuse of market power” as defined by the Trade Practices Act 1974.

The first step in any competition analysis is to define the relevant market.
The purpose of market definition is to determine the boundaries of a given market. Only then will it be possible to analyze the prospects for competition in the market, opportunities for particular firms to acquire and exercise market power, and implications for consumer welfare.

A market exists where buyers wishing to buy a good or service come into contact with sellers wishing to sell that good or service, so that transactions occur. For competition purposes, a market includes all those suppliers, and buyers, between whom there is close competition, that is:

All those goods or services that are close substitutes in the eyes of buyers, and
All those suppliers who produce (or could easily switch to produce) those goods or services.

There is no definition of market area in The trade Practices act.
Mr. Samuels, and Alan Fels before him, know this and have not made any reccommendations to have the “market area” defined, and for very good reasons. They know that their buddies, “the MSC”, would be liable for prosecution under section 46 for ‘abuse of market power’ almost every day with their constant tactic of ‘geographical price gouging.’

BBB, are you aware that there has NEVER been a successful prosecution of Section46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974(abuse of market power) in food retailing??

BBB Do you really think there has never been a complaint??

Regarding your ill informed comments about independant grocers. This shows one thing. You have no real knowledge of food retailing at all. I suggest you read my comments to Adrian above, then Mr Samuels report to find out why the independant grocer is battling to compete with the MSC, then be a good boy and leave the real discussion about food retailing to the people who know something about it.

Yes BBB, I do pity a person who does their best to bury a subject with psuedo intelectual bullshit so as to hide the truth; that they are not in possession of the facts.
In short BBB, you are just sooooo, like full of shit!! Tell me BBB which supermarket chain pays you? Or is it both!!

Oh, and I’m not on the payroll of any supermarket, so I guess that makes me just, like, totally stupid, like!

BBB

When Woolworths put Franklins out of business, some of those stores were bought by a South African company called Pick’nPay. There were approx eighty stores in all. They decided to keep the name and still operate today as ‘Franklins’, but have nothing to do with the original Franklins who were owned by Hong Kong Dairy Company. The store you refer to is one of these. Pick’nPay have had real problems. They used to be supplied by ‘Metcash’ the ONLY grocery wholesaler in Australia. Now why do you think there is only ONE grocery wholesaler in Australia? Because the ACCC did not think there was anything wrong with Metcash buying out their competition and becoming a monoply. And these people are the gaurdians of competition in Australia!! God help small business!! Can you believe that?? Metcash,like John David before them, do not pass on all the hidden “trading terms” they receive from suppliers. That’s the reason why the IGA (Independant Grocers of Australia) can’t compete with the MSC, and that’s the reason why the independant retailer has virtually dissapeared. Pickn’pay have ongoing legal action against Metcash, basically because they believe they have been “ripped off” by Metcash. They now own their own warehouse and are still struggling because they will never be able to ask suppliers for the “trading terms” that the MSC get from suppliers, why? Because these are confidential terms between the supplier and their customers. In my submission to the inquiry I asked for these to be outlawed, and that all monies given by suppliers to their customers be included in buying price. These hidden discounts are the way MSC, Metcash and John David before them have thumbed their noses at Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.(abuse of market power)since its inception. Mr Samuels not only does not believe that these “trading terms” are neccessarily bad for competition, but thinks it’s OK for the MSC to have this powerful and unfair advantage over their competitors. A very very important point is made here! The ACCC does not care if the independant is unable to compete, only if the MSC are in competition with each other! That’s the stance they’ve always taken and the result is that now they have a duoply in Australia that is unsurpassed in any country on planet earth. This duoply is so powerful it is able to cause shifts in the economic price index which have nothing to do with inflation or anything else, and it is the reason why grocery prices in Australia are rising faster than any country in the OECD, and Mr Samuels says “I don’t see anything wrong”! One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Samuels has never left “the big end of town”, and I think that every independant retailer in Australia could be forgiven for thinking that politicians(who make the laws) and the ACCC(who supposedly enforce the laws) receive a wage from the MSC.
Who was it who said “too much power corrupts.”

BTW, a great analysis, which I fould very interesting and informative. You obviously know what you are talking about, but regarding Franklins, I should point out that it does exist in some form since our local is a beautifully appointed Franklins store.

Cheers
BBB