Leopard shipped bugged

[iago]

Without competition there would be no advancements.

Seriously? Because I write software, paint miniatures, and do a lot of other things without any competition. Without competition, you can promote more widespread teamwork.

The problem is the greedy people who want it all to themselves, whether it's money or credit or whatever. But that's such a primitive way of thinking that we really need to advance beyond that kind of thing.

Again, read the book I recommended if you're interested in understanding the argument.

[Warrior]

Without competition there would be no advancements.

Seriously? Because I write software, paint miniatures, and do a lot of other things without any competition. Without competition, you can promote more widespread teamwork.

The problem is the greedy people who want it all to themselves, whether it's money or credit or whatever. But that's such a primitive way of thinking that we really need to advance beyond that kind of thing.

Again, read the book I recommended if you're interested in understanding the argument.

Competition is not the problem, it's people that are the problem. If any entity achieves a 100% domination of a market, innovation will stagnate. There is no incentive to keep producing products, the people would be locked into the said product so they cannot even argue with their dollar.

With competition, the people are given backing by their money and companies are pressured to compete for a slice of the pie. It can periodically go wrong when a company sees unchecked success, but normally it works in the way detailed above.

I think the bigger issue is greed within the companies, so perhaps that is what could use a revision. Competition, that is fair competition -- is very good.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=10744.msg137329#msg137329 date=1196817861]
Competition is not the problem, it's people that are the problem. If any entity achieves a 100% domination of a market, innovation will stagnate. There is no incentive to keep producing products, the people would be locked into the said product so they cannot even argue with their dollar.

With competition, the people are given backing by their money and companies are pressured to compete for a slice of the pie. It can periodically go wrong when a company sees unchecked success, but normally it works in the way detailed above.

I think the bigger issue is greed within the companies, so perhaps that is what could use a revision. Competition, that is fair competition -- is very good.

If money is the only reason for innovation, then you're right. But I disagree with that, I don't think it works at all. Any system where companies are rewarded for harming people has problems.

I just disagree with the whole capitalist theory. I don't think it's working very well, and I don't think it can ever work well. People need to get together and think of a better way to do it.

[rabbit]

You missed one word: this whole problem is based on competition. Without competition, the world would be a better place.

Obviously we should ditch capitalism's for communism then!  A lot of things look good on paper...

Right now the US is more Monarchial/Imperialist with a lot of traits of a Totalitarian system.  Communism is totally on the opposite end of the spectrum, off with Canada Nazis Socialists.

[iago]

Nazis weren't socialists, and Canadians are nowhere near socialists.

[rabbit]

Nazi is the German shortening for National Socialist (Nationalsozialismus), so they totally were.

[iago]

Yeah, in the same way that conservatives are conservative and democrats are democratic. :P

[Camel]

You missed one word: this whole problem is based on competition. Without competition, the world would be a better place.

Obviously we should ditch capitalism's for communism then!  A lot of things look good on paper...

What are you talking about? Communism is great!


For software.

[AntiVirus]

x86] link=topic=10744.msg137329#msg137329 date=1196817861]
Competition is not the problem, it's people that are the problem. If any entity achieves a 100% domination of a market, innovation will stagnate. There is no incentive to keep producing products, the people would be locked into the said product so they cannot even argue with their dollar.

With competition, the people are given backing by their money and companies are pressured to compete for a slice of the pie. It can periodically go wrong when a company sees unchecked success, but normally it works in the way detailed above.

I think the bigger issue is greed within the companies, so perhaps that is what could use a revision. Competition, that is fair competition -- is very good.

If money is the only reason for innovation, then you're right. But I disagree with that, I don't think it works at all.

I don't agree with you there iago.  There might be some innovation in the world, but it would not be able to compare to the fast pace innovation going on today.  There would be no incentive to innovate as long as what they have allows them to get by.

[Camel]

AntiVirus obviously never watched Star Trek.

[AntiVirus]

AntiVirus obviously never watched Star Trek.

Lol. I did, but not religiously.

[iago]

I don't agree with you there iago.  There might be some innovation in the world, but it would not be able to compare to the fast pace innovation going on today.  There would be no incentive to innovate as long as what they have allows them to get by.

The innovation going on today? Do you mean the research being done by universities, or the race to make the cheapest products? Because research done by universities isn't financially motivated (in the sense that, if financial motivation were to disappear, they would still be doing it), and the race to make cheapest products isn't something I like.

Or by "innovation" you might mean marketing. Every company wants their product to seem like the best, so they make small changes, advertise it as something groundbreaking, and people are left with the impression that the new product is better than the old one.

[zorm]

The innovation going on today? Do you mean the research being done by universities, or the race to make the cheapest products? Because research done by universities isn't financially motivated (in the sense that, if financial motivation were to disappear, they would still be doing it), and the race to make cheapest products isn't something I like.

Or by "innovation" you might mean marketing. Every company wants their product to seem like the best, so they make small changes, advertise it as something groundbreaking, and people are left with the impression that the new product is better than the old one.

Why don't you like the race to make the cheapest products? I guess you're willing to spend $5,000 to buy a computer with a 300mb harddrive, 4mb of memory and a 16Mhz processor?

The computer market is a really nice example of the fact that this works.

What happens when you reach the point that prices can't be lowered anymore? You get a Coke vs. Pepsi situation and perfect competition. Everyone wins.

Maybe your Canadian schools are special but from my experiences and what I've read about the experiences of others, schooling will generally show you why "teamwork" doesn't work. One person will end up doing 90% of the work while everyone else reaps the rewards.

This is why capitalism works and so many people like it, when one person does 90% of the work they get 90% of the rewards. It also doesn't prevent teamwork, so instead of forcing people to play nice and getting crap as output you get people who want to work together and awesome outputs.

[iago]

I should point out first that I'm talking about an ideal world, people in the current world have to mature a lot before it happens. But competition isn't helping us get to a mature state, it's only forcing us to play on their levels.

This is why capitalism works and so many people like it, when one person does 90% of the work they get 90% of the rewards. It also doesn't prevent teamwork, so instead of forcing people to play nice and getting crap as output you get people who want to work together and awesome outputs.

Does it really work like that there? Because around here, as you go further up the management chain, people make more money and do less work. The hardest workers I know definitely can't afford to go on vacation for several weeks out of the year, but the people at the top who do very little can.

[Blaze]

I should point out first that I'm talking about an ideal world, people in the current world have to mature a lot before it happens. But competition isn't helping us get to a mature state, it's only forcing us to play on their levels.

This is why capitalism works and so many people like it, when one person does 90% of the work they get 90% of the rewards. It also doesn't prevent teamwork, so instead of forcing people to play nice and getting crap as output you get people who want to work together and awesome outputs.

Does it really work like that there? Because around here, as you go further up the management chain, people make more money and do less work. The hardest workers I know definitely can't afford to go on vacation for several weeks out of the year, but the people at the top who do very little can.

Is it the little guys that get blamed and have to quit when a company does poorly?  No, that's the high up people.  :P