The problem with economists is that they have no respect for...

The problem with economists is that they have no respect for facts or the robust scrutinisation of same. The evidence accepted by this inquiry would not satisfy a court of law, whose proceedings are governed by well-established rules of evidence developed over a millenia of legal precedent. Some disgruntled bailee cabbie mouths off at the inquiry because they feel entitled to abolish capital (yes, like Lennin) and somehow this is the basis for the overhaul of an industry. Economics is a relatively new "science", whose theories are based upon assumptions and the segregation of theories from the actual world. Indeed, deregulation of the legal profession (a recommendation by Professor Fels) saw the near-collapse of the insurance industry via excesive litigation and a consequent re-regulation of that industry, coupled with draconian codification of personal injury laws whose severity would never have been countenanced by the courts. Further, it was economic theory put forward by Hilmer in the 1980's which told us that the abolition of tariffs, the floating of the exchange rate and deregulation of the financial sector would end this country's persistent current account deficits and ballooning foreign debt. This has not occurred, but conflagrated, and a low unemployment rate due solely to unprecedent numbers retiring from work. In short, the inquiry was a farce and thankfully the legally-trained politicians will see it for what it really was.