Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> The point is that competition gives an incentive to build better products
> >than the competitors.
> Thomas:
> One of
> the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above. The implication is that
> there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
> there is truth in that statement. However, what may be good in moderation
> may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the
> excessive stage,
What exists now with huge TNC dominance of global mkts isn't increasing
competition; it's decreasing it. Takeovers, mergers, secret price fixing, and
cases like sterile gentech seeds, are IMO classically monopolistic
(anti-competitive). The smaller, local/regional businesses usually can't compete
on price (quality/safety is not always easily judged by consumers), & if any
small guys do compete pretty well, the big guys try to buy them ASAP. I've seen
my mouthwash - Viadent(vegetable base) get bought by Colgate Palmolive. Next
thing they did was come out with a totally different product, same name but
called "better tasting formula". It was a totally different formula with no
'sanguinaria'(sp.?). They still sell the original one, much better IMO, but can
stop anytime they choose.
Competition is more players/products, not fewer. Myth is that increased
competition is destroying product quality. Globalisation & monopolisation look
like the culprits to me.
Steve
--
"To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being
paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy,
in our age, can still do for those who study it."
Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy"
