Competition is almost the only thing that has ever lowered prices, raised wages, raised quality and invented new things. It's weird to demonise competition.
Yes, competition generally leads to more innovation and lower prices in industry. Do you know of any economist who thinks otherwise, except in specific cases where natural monopolies exist?
If there's no competition there's no incentive to innovate.
Or hurt it by forcing people to use a less efficient supplier. Competition is only good if it organic in nature, (ie: comes about because both have efficient methods and high quality products, even though they differ to some degree) not if it forced competition. Then you end up getting a worse product when you could have gotten a better one.
I think competition for competition's sake is good. Historically and inherently it will ultimately result in better outcomes for consumers as ultimately that's the purpose of all companies - providing goods and services.
Interesting ideas, but the economics are bogus. Saying that successful companies avoid competition is like saying Joyce Gracie avoided competition in the early days of the UFC. Being so much better than you opponents that you beat then easily is not avoiding competition.
When people praise competition they are praising the conditions under which all people are able to complete for the same market ex ante. If one company develops a technology that renders others unable to compete, then they become a monopolist ex post. But it is the ex ante competition that allowed then to enter that market in the first place
The premise wasn't that there weren't competitors already, I don't think. With most things the price is (usually) floored by the cost of production, ceilinged by the value it provides people, and then competition is what moves it from the latter to closer to the former.
reply