Efficiency vs. competitiveness.

7 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2009-03-14 21:04

Machjo

I've noticed that in Canadian culture we seem to place so much emphasis on competitiveness and often equate it with efficiency. In my mind, though, it would appear that efficiency is best achieved not through competitiveness, but rather through co-operation. To take a few examples:

In law:

With each lawyer focussed on trying to prove a case, it's more likely that the lawyer will neglect facts that don't prove his case, facts that the opposition lawyer might fail to discover, and so go unnoticed. Would it not be more efficient for the lawyers to work together, perhaps with each focussing on some point of strengh in his search for the truth rather than trying to prove his case?

In economics:

Businesses spend untold billions in trying to undermine the compeition through advertisements. Natural monopolies that wold by definition function more efficiently as monolopies are broken apart by the government all in the name of competition with no regard for efficiency. More money wasted. Couldn't businesses all agree to comon restrictions on advertising spending so as to not waste so much money jus competing with one another?

Then we have governments engage in trade wars, leading to further economic disruption, and then we have strategic manipulation of the currency to our benefit, only to suffer when the other country retaliates with its own monetary manipulation. Again, could we not learn from Europe and its economic collaboration?

Then labour and management put production to a halt in labour disputes, with nothing being produced, thus no profits, and a net loss to both sides. Why couldn't we just give workers voting rights for the board of directors as a forum where labour andmanagement could settle their issues through a vote?

In politics:

Politicians organize into parties, each pitted against the other, with yet more millions spent on negative advertising, and time wasted in gridlock.Why could we not simply have independent candidates as is the case in the Nunavut legislature, which would likely reducepartisanship and thus parliamentary gridlock?

Then we have wars as a solution to disputes. I'm not against war at all costs, but it does seem that war has become viewed as an excessively expedient solution in the last decade. Again, why cold we not share a common force, or at least establish and enforce common rules determining when it is approapriate to use our forces?

What could we do to promote efficiency, even if it has to come through co-operation, rather than stick ot the mantra of competitiveness at all costs? We're dealing with untold billions of dollars at stake that culd be better used elsewhere.

Sat, 2009-03-14 21:05

Machjo

Besides, where are we gettig this idea that competitive necessarily equals efficient? Is it our education system? And if so, how to change it?

Sat, 2009-03-14 23:55

Fidel

Canada's economy has reverted to hewer and drawer status again since 2005. One of the few sectors of the economy we excelled wrt productivity and efficiency has been the automotive industry. The rest of our burgeoning branch plant economy since FTA-NAFTA has actually lost ground wrt Canada's widening productivity gap with the U.S.

Of course, the US does have one significant advantage over Canada and European countries with smaller workforces, and this has to do with the sheer size of the labour force and the USA's ability to run production/assembly lines 24-7. Longer production runs tend to produce more widgets per unit time, or some such economic technical jargon. German and French labour would be the most productive, if it wasnt for three and four day workweeks, and all those union benefits over there, time off for family and life in general etc. But I imagine China will surpass everyone at some point.

Sun, 2009-03-15 01:21

Sven

Machjo wrote:

I've noticed that in Canadian culture we seem to place so much emphasis on competitiveness and often equate it with efficiency. In my mind, though, it would appear that efficiency is best achieved not through competitiveness, but rather through co-operation. To take a few examples:

In law:

With each lawyer focussed on trying to prove a case, it's more likely that the lawyer will neglect facts that don't prove his case, facts that the opposition lawyer might fail to discover, and so go unnoticed. Would it not be more efficient for the lawyers to work together, perhaps with each focussing on some point of strengh in his search for the truth rather than trying to prove his case?

Law isn't like science (or like science should be): A search for truth.

Machjo wrote:

In economics:

Businesses spend untold billions in trying to undermine the compeition through advertisements. Natural monopolies that wold by definition function more efficiently as monolopies are broken apart by the government all in the name of competition with no regard for efficiency. More money wasted. Couldn't businesses all agree to comon restrictions on advertising spending so as to not waste so much money jus competing with one another?

You want monopolies?? If General Motors was the only game in town, we'd still be driving around in rust-buckets for cars that would be damned lucky to reach 100,000 miles before falling completely apart. You want just Microsoft products?

Monopolies are take-it-or-leave-it (at prices that are more than justified, relative to prices in a competitive environment).

The only thing worse than a private-company monopoly would be a government-run monopoly. Could you imagine if the government was the sole source of cars, clothes, music, software, art, food, wine, etc., etc.?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sun, 2009-03-15 01:45

Fidel

Sven wrote:
[
The only thing worse than a private-company monopoly would be a government-run monopoly.

Or even worse, a Wall St-Washington monopoly on money creation and credit, or, the shadow banking system. Wall St has basically taken over resource allocation for the country and are regulating themselves. Americans will tested in the coming years to demonstrate their faith in the corporatocracy with higher taxes and a lot less common good in order to prop up the fat cats' way of life.

Sun, 2009-03-15 11:56

Machjo

Sven wrote:

You want monopolies?? If General Motors was the only game in town, we'd still be driving around in rust-buckets for cars that would be damned lucky to reach 100,000 miles before falling completely apart. You want just Microsoft products?

Monopolies are take-it-or-leave-it (at prices that are more than justified, relative to prices in a competitive environment).

The only thing worse than a private-company monopoly would be a government-run monopoly. Could you imagine if the government was the sole source of cars, clothes, music, software, art, food, wine, etc., etc.?

If you read my post again, you'll notice I was referring ot natural monopolies (i.e. organizations that tend towards monopolies if unchecked by artificial means owing to increased efficiency as a monopoly). Natural monopolies generally include:

1. organizations that rely on a physical infrastructural network. Examples include

road systems (could you imagine private companies building streets everywhere and you'd have to pay at poll booths at every stop, trying to determine which way to work is the cheepest).

Telephone and interne nework. They constantly drift towards monopoly since even if we're dealing with more than one company, they still have to work together to integrate their common network, relying on common phone lines, compatible systems, etc. The only reason they're not a monopoly is because of government intervention. And that just means multiplication of administrations, which simply lowers efficiency.

Small town newspapers. There's just not enough of a market for 2.

etc.

In cases where we're dealing with natural monopolices, why not gradually transform them into workers' and consumers' co-ops or something of the sort? Could you imagine if we took our sense of competition to an extreme and privatized roads, water and swer systems, etc? Could you imagine each company with multiple pipelines and you had to choose which water pipe to use, then the company came and connected it for you? That's how ridiculously inefficient it wold be. Seeing that we don't fear monoply in that domain, and even expect monopoly in the name of efficiency, why do we carry the same ridiculously inefficient competitive and confrontational philosophy to other natural monopolies.

P.S. The car industry is generally not a natural monopoly to the best of my knowledge, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Mon, 2009-03-23 13:16

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

the problem is in a capitalistic matieralistic culture the stuff you describe won't happen for example the monopolies because if there no need to change it and you can make money just fine why spend money on R&D? and the risk that comes with a new product. That the problem