We’re partly to blame for our own terrible companies
There is a widespread feature through Australia’s worst companies: oligopolists. Our worst company is a dominant member of a comfortable duo in aviation. Google, one of the most competitive companies on the planet, is the top five artists. Fossil fuel giants dominate the top of the list. Casino Duopoly and a member of the oligopol of free TV are the top ten.
This is Australian disease: A medium-sized economy on a giant land mass with a population that is too small to support strong competition in large companies, their ability to bring marking on consumers and other businesses and increase their political impacts to their interests. Apart from a few exceptions, governments have returned and allowed the development of the disease, encouraged the manipulation of the policy with two advanced democratic systems that access to policy makers can be purchased by those with sufficient money to participate in political donors.
The lack of competition leads to sloppy management and DUD boards: managers and managers who do not care to violate the law over and over again, or who activate customers and organized crimes, or who only see them as costs of doing business, are always ready for improvement of internal processes. They see an unhealthy threat to sterilization of competition, as the governments and other parties to be manipulated as losses and costs that will change forever – especially to the public. All in the name of delivery for shareholders.
Who are these shareholders? Look in the mirror. Usually, except for private capital controlled companies, we are.
Almost every employee is beneficial to Australia and the most retired Australians through pension accounts. The result is a circular economy where we pay a lot for low quality goods and services and endure the damages created by companies. This fee is the higher prices collected from a dead relative, the flood caused by the climate crisis, the higher prices collected by oligopolis, the avoidance and escaping (with the advice of a consulting firm), costs, consumer and tax exchangers, and we get benefits globally and globally for worse shares.
This is the regulatory dilemma: governments that regulate the industries in anti-competitive markets or that will perform better, the flow of profit to the shareholders, the tax returns they enjoyed (20 billion dollars of tax revenue in 2023-24) and the ability of large super funds to offer twice the expectations of hostility each year. Would you like better banks? Would you like a good airline? Would you like to tax and close fossil fuels? Costs will show the line in your superfolition.
The winners of this form of circular capitalism are Boomers, the first cohort in our pension/pension system. However, the next generations will also benefit, finally – the young Australians will have to wait until the second half of the century to enjoy these precious pension returns, but these oligopol profits will accumulate until then and will be supported with compound interest.
In other words, whether it is like or not, we all drink money: it moans about Qantas, abusing banks and large retailers, lamenting the climate crisis-Maybe while waiting for us to occupy us while waiting for us to retire (or finally we prefer half-retirement) -Lagless benefits.
The losers are only those who have limited super funds and anyone who really cares about productivity. The national self -esteem about the poor productivity performance faded for the moment after the government’s round desk, but the market concentration, one of the primary driving forces of this performance, remained. We all invest in a system that creates a deviant incentive for lazy oligopolists, pollutants and predators.
