Competition vs. Cooperation

[RNK]

Hi,

There's this aquaintence of mine who seems utterly convinced that the natural process of competition between corporations will result in the most efficient possible economic style, simply by means of his belief that productive efficiency equates directly into profit, and thus all corporations naturally develop the most efficient means of production.

I know this is blatantly untrue. Corporations pursue only one goal, and that is profit. This guy even made the ludicrous claim that executives that make stupidly large amounts of money are naturally "weeded out" by the fact that their paycheque is grossly inefficient and thus those executives are fired.

Despite the fact that I know that he is completely wrong, and a very ignorant motherfucker, I have trouble articulating this fact to him. I also don't want to write him a novel, so could someone please help me find a way to articulate his ignorance while keeping it relatively short and sweet?

[apathy maybe]

Ask the stupid fucker if he has heard of monopolies. They are a fascinating beast.

What happens is this, there is competition in the market, one or two corporations get really big and take over most of the market, crushing the other corporations.

This leads to either a monopoly or duopoly situation.

What happens then is, the company or companies in that situation rule the roost. They don't have to worry about the customers anymore, they raise prices and lower standards. The customers have no where else to turn, and thus the monopoly continues.

This is the whole point of the game Monopoly. Created by a left winger, it demonstrates how one player will always win. Bankrupting all the other players in the process. Unless there is government intervention, monopolies are bad. (This is the same reason why "anarcho-capitalism" wouldn't work. With no government to enforce competition laws, monopolies would quickly form and became a de facto government.)

Wikipedia has some information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29

[manic expression]

It is a competition to see who can exploit the most. The competition of capitalism leads to increased exploitation, deprivation and inequity.

Here's an example. There are two businesses in the same industry. Business A pays their workers $10/hour and gives them a 6 hour workday; Business B pays their workers $5.15/hour and has them work for 8-10 hours a day. Logically, Business B will be in an advantageous position, because its production costs are less. If Business A wants to compete, it will have to pay its workers less and less and make them work more and more (or just fire them and move its operations to a third world country). That is one thing that competition does.

Secondly, think about other things that businesses do to get ahead. Wal-Mart is a good example. Wal-Mart has destroyed entire communities by driving other businesses (usually petty-bourgeois businesses, "small businesses") into the ground, allowing them to be the only place to go for people. This process, which cripples or destroys communities and consolidates wealth into very few hands, is competition.

Every putrid thing that a business does will probably be due to competition, it is the basis of exploitation.

[luztax]

but wont all the good workers go to buisness 'a' and 'b' left wih the bad workers?

[IcarusAngel]

Well, you don't need corporations to have competition between man and man. Corporations are just one legal way to have competition, like a monopoly game.

"Competition is the way of the jungle, cooperation is the way for society." Kropotkin

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:38 pm
but wont all the good workers go to buisness 'a' and 'b' left wih the bad workers?
If Business A isn't making enough profits, it won't be able to hire more workers, much less stay afloat for long.

Instead of businesses losing workers because they pay too little, what usually happens is workers "price themselves out of the market", and lose their jobs because they don't want to take less wages. That's exactly what happened to autoworkers in the US, as well as countless other workers who lost their jobs to people who would take far less money (aka undocumented workers or overseas workers).

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:38 pm
but wont all the good workers go to buisness 'a' and 'b' left wih the bad workers?
But what happens to the workers who didn't get into business "a" A company does not have endless amounts of job openings. Naturally the workers who did not get into business 'a" will go to business "b" And even if they don't, business "b" could always go to the 3rd world for cheap labor and crush company "a"

Ask your friend how competition allows for the most economic growth and the best standard of life for everyone. He wont be able to, because competition only allows for a few people to become rich and wealth while everyone else is exploited and live poor. Ask him, why if competition is so good that there are BILLIONS of 3rd world workers who are exploited every day and live in shit holes. Competition will never be good because the only way to profit is to exploit someone. Someone must always be exploited and oppressed in order for competition to prosper (for those few people)

Competition almost always leads to monopoly and monopolys destroy those small business (or petty bourgeoisie) As comrade manic expression stated, you can use Wal-Mart as a example. They come into a small community and they sell everything from electronics, grocery's, and furniture. What happens to those small business that already sold those products? There fucked and out of a job. There goes there whole money source. There is no way for small business to compete with large corporation's like Wal-Mart that sell everything so cheap because they exploit workers in 3rd world countries.