Higher prices may sometimes be justified, but a conspiracy of producers against the public is always the wrong way to bring them about.
Can we just emphasise that point: "... a conspiracy of producers against the public is always the wrong way...".
So, in a paper that wasn't a load of shit—wherein the columnists often contradict themselves within the same article, let alone from day to day—that would be the end of the piece. but, o no, not in The Groan.
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.
As Timmy says...
Eh? So with the justification of higher prices being needed you’ll agree to a conspiracy of producers against the public?
What a bunch of fuckwit cunts they are at The Groan. No wonder Polly feels so at home there (and is it just me, or does this leader not carry some hallmarks of Toynbee's writing style?)...
2 comments:
It has all the hallmarks of a Pollywobble, but with her thirst for self publicity one can only imagine that without her name on it, it isn't.
Also see the classic "dabs" of Socialist Newspeak
the home office proposed changing the law so supermarkets are no longer forced to respond to cut-throat competition by selling cut-price liquor.
"forced"? If supermarkets do not want to do it, the do not do it. No force here.
The idea of imposing competition with an eye on the wider public interest could have more general application.
"imposing competition"? What is "competitive" about price rigging, pray tell?
Bunch of disingenuous inverters!
Post a comment