Higher prices may sometimes be justified, but a conspiracy of producers against the public is always the wrong way to bring them about.
In a report on alcohol last month, the home office proposed changing the law so supermarkets are no longer forced to respond to cut-throat competition by selling cut-price liquor. The idea of imposing competition with an eye on the wider public interest could have more general application. Regulators guard their independence jealously, but they need the freedom to apply it more flexibly, because there are times when lower prices come at a high cost.
Eh? So with the justification of higher prices being needed you’ll agree to a conspiracy of producers against the public?
And I thought Leaders were written by the bright people?
6 responses so far ↓
1 JuliaM // Apr 26, 2008 at 11:37 am
“So with the justification of higher prices being needed you’ll agree to a conspiracy of producers against the public?”
Of course. When it’s for the right cause…
2 Kit // Apr 26, 2008 at 11:40 am
Once you believe that you know the price that something “should” be sold at it opens the Pandora’s Box of price control, regulation and corruption.
3 Arfa // Apr 26, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Elsewhere in that Guardian leader, they start talking about the CC’s Airports report.
Which raises the important question: what are you going to do with your geek points, Tim?
http://timworstall.com/2008/04/23/geek-points-on-offer
Tim adds: Rejoice?
4 Mark Wadsworth // Apr 26, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Snafu beat you to it. Damn him!
5 Matthew // Apr 27, 2008 at 9:21 am
Tim - this is your view as well though, isn’t it? You don’t believe in price-fixing, and you do believe in Pigovian taxation.
Tim adds: Umm, not really. I’m against price fixing by collusion (Adam Smith, businessmen seldom meet together….conspiracy against the public) while entirely happy with hte idea that taxation should be used to incorporate externalities into market prices. There’s not a contradiction there that I can see.
6 Matthew // Apr 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Is that not a restatement of the Guardian’s leader?
Leave a Comment