The debate "Is Competition Good Or Bad For The Society" was started by
June 22, 2020, 12:56 pm.
52 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
posted the first argument on this debate as a disagreeing part.
amazestep18, AerichJ, Sya, Soraya_q, cassiopeia, Abeah and 46 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, hmm_ok and 11 visitors disagree.
Depends what the scenario is. If it is a zero sum game then cooperation has limited space to flourish. So competition is good because it's the only way to naturally channel resources meritoriously, and that's seen as a form of justice: "reap what you sow". But, competing in a positive sum game is inefficient. In a positive sum game the market can co-operate and operate at something called the the Pareto optimal frontier, which is where resources are used the most efficiently by all players of the game.
Conventional wisdom is most ventures in the economy are zero sum games so competition is generally good. But it's only a zero sum game when the game is focused on competing over a single resource. An example of a single resource is "customers looking for the cheapest bin cleaning services in a suburb of London". They're a single resource that bin cleaning companies in that suburb compete over. If the companies vary only on price then it's a classic zero sum game. But by only competing on price it becomes a race to the bottom and both businesses lose.
Therefore, what businesses do to avoid a race to the bottom is differentiate on more than cost. The ultimate goal is to not compete with those that we would conventionally view as competitors. If one bin cleaning service is expensive but has experts with 10+ years experience, and the other is super cheap but uses a decentralized model like uber to find cleaners, then those two businesses are not directly competing for the same resource anymore. The experts are focused on brand building and inspiring trust in customers with higher disposable income while the randoms next door are just looking for anyone.
The randoms next door could try to target those with higher disposable income, but it would be less efficient for them because they would be less receptive if they were informed on the options in the market.
So at the end of the day, if you can compete by not directly competing then it's good, otherwise it is bad.