On Thu, March 12, 1998 at 07:50:16 (+0800) Anthony D'costa writes:
>being Competitive has little to do with the fictitious notion of zero
>profits. Competition is not understood to result solely from the number of
>firms (the quantity theory of competition) but also from the "mobility" of
>capital point of view. Greater mobility implies competitiveness and
>technology provides the basis for today's competitiveness. Thus even with
>a few sellers there is oligpolistic competition with reasonably good
>profits.
This sounds out of whack. First, it is neoclassical economics which
*defines* competition as selling at (near) marginal cost. Second,
this is usually considered A Good Thing by orthodox economists, as it
is supposedly evidence of, inter alia, consumer sovereignty, and is
usually taken to be one of the Shining Virtues of Capitalism. Third,
*I* understood competition to mean precisely that, and I'm sure others
did too. Fourth, if "greater mobility [of capital] *implies*
competitiveness" (my emph.), and is not simply some other definition
for it, then competitiveness has either been left undefined, or
retains some other unspoken definition. Fifth, "technology provides
the basis for today's competitiveness" could be extended to the past,
as technology has always existed, and in any case I'm not sure what
this is supposed to mean (higher technology, whatever that means
exactly, leads to higher competitiveness?). Sixth, from what I
understand, profits, at least in the US in the 90s, have been
"stunning" according to the business press, and not merely "reasonably
good".
Bill
