Corante

About this Author
Dana Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
About this Site
Moore’s Law defines the history of technology. It held that the number of circuits etched on a given piece of silicon could double every 18 months as far as its author, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, could see. Moore’s Law has spawned constant revolutions since then, not just in computing but in communications, in science, in a host of areas. Moore’s Law applies to radios, and to optical fiber, but there are some areas where it doesn’t apply. In this blog we’ll take a daily look at new implications of Moore’s Law in real time, as it rolls forward to create our future.
Media Bloggers
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Moore's Lore

« MSN Search Just Allright | Main | The Closeted Generation »

February 01, 2005

The Key to Growth is Competition

Email This Entry

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn

It's not capitalism. Capitalism does not by itself guarantee competition. (Image from Clint Sprott at the University of Wisconsin. Go Badgers.)

That is does is the biggest lie told by political conservatives.

Capitalism, in fact, evolves toward monopoly, or to its cousins duopoly and oligopoly, just as ecosystems evolve toward a "climax" state that can only be re-set by catastrophe.

The only mechanism we have to protect competition against this natural tendency is government.

Only a government strong enough to stand up against the biggest enterprises can guarantee competition.

This is difficult to assure.

It's difficult to assure because money corrupts, and corporations -- not government -- are the source of money. It's your money, and unfortunately corporations are considered as people under U.S. law -- immortal people who can't be jailed.

It's also difficult because companies are lazy, just as people are lazy. (Just as these bears are lazy, from an English firm offering tours of the Canadian tundra.)

Drug companies want faster approvals, less government, and then when bad drugs get into people as a result they wind up losing far more than a bureaucracy would cost. Financial companies and industrial companies, too, wish always to reduce the level of competition, to assure leaders their sinecures and, on down the line, to guarantee workers their pensions.

Thus even in a strong democracy, corruption can easily occur. Organized labor and organized capital can end up on the same side, so "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA." Or big capital can crush government and labor both, as has happened in our time.

When this happens, the only cure is competition. This time, it's competition from other countries, and other systems.

The cure for Bushism lies in India, in China, in Japan, in Europe. The test is whether the system of business-controlled government delivers more growth than other systems. There is no such thing as absolute power, no matter how absolutist a local government may appear to be.

Competition is reduced here, it thrives there, so their economies rise relative to ours, while ours falls -- even if it is growing in absolute terms it's falling relative to others.

This will continue until Americans are either impoverished and economically crushed or until we get the message and take matters into your own political hands, creating real business competition across the board.

This is not a matter of personal belief. It is as things are. And it takes neither genius nor anger to predict the end of it. All you need do is look at history, find the patterns, catch the Clues.

The only way to get better is through having an opponent.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business Models | Consulting | Economics | Futurism | History | Journalism


COMMENTS

1. Emeka on February 1, 2005 12:33 PM writes...

You forgot to mention Africa take a look at www.timbuktuchronicles.blogspot.com to get a sense of what is happening below the radar

Permalink to Comment

2. Brad Hutchings on February 1, 2005 01:54 PM writes...

Who says we are interested in competition? We're interested in growth, as that is what makes our lives generally better and easier. You are correct in saying that Capitalism does not guarantee competition. But regardless of the sizes of firms and competitive landscape, unregulated economies have a Historical (with a big H) track record of promoting growth. And it's a small-l libertarian position, not a politically conservative one. Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs are easily as economically illiterate as the people who convinced you that competition was the highest goal. I honestly hope you just miswrote that first paragraph!!

The big problem with government as referee is that government doesn't have the intentions nor the information to do the job within any factor of optimality that the cruel, free market can. You decry lack of competition in local phone service. Yet, if one takes of the archaic POTS blinders and thinks in terms of communicatioins, there is indeed lots of competition! Cable, wireless, satellite, ... You decry the downfall of a great company, AT&T, when it was propped up as a monopoly by the same strong government you advocate, free from competition, for over 60 years!! Compare long distance phone rates in 1980 in 1980 dollars to rates today in today's dollars to see what benefites all the nasty deregulation -- with some breaking apart of old giants and some consolidation of new upstarts (the process is called "dynamism"). Compare those and you will see that a free, dynamic economy kicks butt over a politely refereed one any day. It gives us growth by cutting costs. Sometimes competition is the mechanism and sometimes, consolodation is the driving force.

Anyway, growth is your goal. We have college and professional sports for those who need a regular dose of competition.

Permalink to Comment

3. Jesse Kopelman on February 1, 2005 04:40 PM writes...

I think ideally no regulation (not no laws, mind you) at all is the best course. With no government protection, over-large companies will eventually be devoured by nimbler competition (see airlines). Unfortunately, with our many-leveled system of government, I don't see how one can keep all the fingers out of the pie. This is really more of a general problem of government structure and means of funding than anything else.

Permalink to Comment

TrackBack URL:
http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/backtar.cgi/6999


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
The Legend of Dennis Hayes
Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
Welcome to 1966
What Must Craigslist Do?
No Such Thing as Free WiFi
The Internet As A Political Issue
Google Images Ruled Illegal
Fall of Radio Shack