Competition forces companies to change

[Deleted member 53821]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

 

[Pogo]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

Would zune exist if iPod never existed? How many companies do something just because their competition is doing it?

 

[Pogo]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

Would zune exist if iPod never existed? How many companies do something just because their competition is doing it?

What the **** is a "zune"?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

Would zune exist if iPod never existed? How many companies do something just because their competition is doing it?

What the **** is a "zune"?

Microsoft iPod killer.

 

[Skylar]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

 

[Skylar]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

 

[Socialist]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

 

[Skylar]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

 

[Socialist]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

 

[Skylar]

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

 

[Socialist]

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

 

[prison/con.net]

bs, it's govt that permits a monopoly to exist. corporations can't do so, without govt guns to maintain their monopolies.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

On a deeper level you hate the idea of a society of individuals. Don't worry. We will keep,having this argument abou economics. You will argue for authoritarianism and I will argue for individual freedom.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

On a side note, I often wonder if there are agreements between companies to keep wages low. If so, it would definitely be an anticompetitive thing. I also wonder why there has never been a serious investigation into this by either politicians of either party.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Tell that to Bill Gates.

Would zune exist if iPod never existed? How many companies do something just because their competition is doing it?

What the **** is a "zune"?

Microsoft iPod killer.

How'd that work out for Microsoft?

 

[Socialist]

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

SD makes good points. Competition is the engine of efficiency in the US economy. Its does force companies to innovate. And encouraging competition is good for the economy in my opinion. The problem is that lassie faire capitalism involves lots of anti-competitive practices because of the elephant in the livingroom:

Business hates competition. They loath it. It cuts into their profits. They do everything they can to eliminate it. And this is nothing new.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Adam Smith

From vertical integration to the rail road attempt at new 'net neutrality rules' to to price fixing to wage fixing to purchasing potential rivals to patent trolling to marketing instead of innovating.....business in a lassie faire capitalist system trends toward regional monopolies. Or at the very least, a stark reduction in competition locally. With a full socialist system trending toward a stark reduction in competition due to government monopolies.

The 'sweet spot' is regulated capitalism. Where the natural tendancy against competition that businesses exert is mitigated. And the greatest degree of competition is facilitated.

Regulated capitalism just leads to rampant exploitation of the third world when the capitalists can't exploit laborers in countries like America anymore..

It can. We've certainly seen that. But we've also seen the development of these 3rd world economies and attempts to institute stronger regulation to protect workers than existed before we got there.

Exposing the great poverty reduction lie - Al Jazeera English
I'm skeptical, yes, improvements have happened, but only when strong labor organization occurs, yet, we continually see capitalists shifting around to where the cheapest labor is found, the least regulations..

Competition also helps workers because whenever there are more workers than work wages and work conditions improve. We see that when the economy is good.

How many people live in poverty worldwide? Where is the majority of production done? When apple/android compete to get better phones, what happens to the workers producing them?

 

[Socialist]

The competitive economic "system" actually forces companies to invest and expand because when they see a competitor they have to continuously improve in order to maintain their business. This means RI development and investment which forces them to spend their money on other companies. Without the competitive system companies will just sit on ther profits because they have no incentive to change and do anything new. why would they when what they are doing is already making them rich? The fear of losing business to a competitor forces them to expand into new markets and produce new products.

Would you consider anti-competative practices antithetical to the advantages of a 'competative economic system'?

yes.

And what of businesses that engage in anti-competitive practices? Such as price fixing, wage fixing, regional monopolies, purchase of competitors, etc. Would that reduce the advantages of a 'competitive economic system'?

Pretty sure that's what all capitalists strive for, america had a "free market" at one point, monopolization occurred, etc.. The free market competition mythology gives me a laugh.

On a deeper level you hate the idea of a society of individuals. Don't worry. We will keep,having this argument abou economics. You will argue for authoritarianism and I will argue for individual freedom.

No, I do not, I hate the idea of a society where one man who does virtually nothing productive can amass a fortune when hundreds of millions lack the most bare basics of needs.