It was not so long ago that governments considered themselves better qualified to make commercial decisions than businesses.
When companies did not invest the way the government thought they should, or offer the sort of product ranges officials thought were required, government stepped in with "industry plans".
These usually involved subsidies and protection from imports in return for industry-wide efforts to develop in particular directions and also to improve productivity.
In the 1980s, under Bob Hawke, we had plans for just about all industries -- cars, clothing, pharmaceuticals, computer software, and photographic materials.
In spite of politicians and bureaucrats having no commercial expertise, some industry plans actually helped companies adapt to the global market. This was due not to any new competition-killing factories or designs but to reduced levels of protection from overseas suppliers which stimulated efficiency gains.
Since the fall of socialism, industry plans are no longer credible. Nobody would listen to a politician berating business manager's as mugs because their business decisions diverged from those the politician preferred.
Instead, the modern approach accepts the market as working far better than state planning. The justification for political intervention nowadays is "market failure".
This is a term that used to refer to very rare cases, such as monopoly or over-use of public roads. But it is now a catch-cry justifying the ever-widening range of government intervention and regulation.
The former East German communist leaders once announced that they had lost confidence in the wisdom of the people and that the people would have to regain that confidence.
Our own governments also mistrust the consumers they rule over.
For example, they consider consumers unable to make the wisest choices between energy cost savings and higher up-front costs for things such as insulation. This form of so-called "market failure" justifies regulations requiring new home owners to install $7000 to $14,000 of energy saving costs.
The government case, that consumers are incapable of trading off up-front expenses for future savings, might equally apply to most products. Does it follow that we should substitute the wisdom of government for consumer choice more generally?
Restraints on consumer choice are also often part of an army of environmental regulations.
These include measures extending energy-saving regulations to fridges and washing machines. A whole host of new ones in the pipeline will extend these to televisions and other energy-using purchases.
These regulatory measures follow reports that massage data to claim that allowing consumers to choose would mean general community losses due to "market failure".
A recent NSW Business Chamber report shows the mounting costs from environmental regulations.
These regulations restrict landowners' and homeowners' choices. In addition, they entail delays and other costs stemming from bureaucratic processing of the massive increase in public participation in decisions.
Local environment plans cascade on top of state and federal regulations and add to the energy regulations, the waste management, water use heritage and other measures that are immunity to government assaults on red tape.
This political override of individual consumers and property owners harms us all. The outcome of socialised decision-making drives us closer to the dreaded East German industrial paralysis.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment