Maybe the Guardian's finally learning?


In a piece about the Chinese rail disaster we have Isabel Hilton making this point:

Yet the conditions that make such corruption endemic remain untouched: the monopoly of power in the hands of an untouchable institution.

Yup, monopolies are bad, M'Kay? A monopoly of power most certainly leads to unaccountability and that in itself to all sorts of horrors, corruption being one of the least of them.

Then we have Felicity Lawrence wibbling about how multi-national corporations now have more power than governments themselves! And with Murdoch:

The most effective checks on transnationals are as likely to come from NGOs and consumers as individual governments these days.

Consumers, eh?

When the Murdochs initially refused to appear before parliament to account for their corporate behaviour, there was much anxious consultation of ancient rules to see if these two foreign citizens could be forced or not. In the end, it was probably the market that got them there,

Markets, eh?

You mean consumers and markets can hold great power to account in a way that governments cannot? That we want a multiplicity of centres of power, not the State having it all as well? You mean that, finally, The Guardian seems to have got the basic point about markets? That they often (but do note not always) regulate activity better than laws, regulations and politicians can?

My word, wouldn't it be lovely if this breakthrough of good sense continued? Somehow I doubt that it will though: who could imagine the paper seriously telling us all that we can choose for ourselves better than their favourite politician can choose for us?