Our notorious Franchise Council of Australia has basically been arguing that legislators should not put in place regulatory mechanisms and better law that would allow for penalties and the highlighting of instances where abusive franchising exists because it would dramatically reduce franchising’s economic input.  What say you on the economic influence of such preposterous suggestions?

Where are our economists when we need them or are they too distracted with how the economy influences franchising to consider the variables of franchising’s influence on economies?

We can argue into the next century about the level of franchising abuse that exists in Australia and throughout the world but the FCA’s passionate argument suggests reform would potentially be cataclysmic.

Alternatively; could it be that franchising might increase its success and proliferation if it were to mutate into a healthy sector for all participants?  Would it really hurt to lose a few dogs? I read a similar argument to the FCA’s but that related to castrating the economic influence of slavery.