Chris wrote:
The point is that competition gives an incentive to build better products
>than the competitors. If there's only one company that builds cars, they
>have no incentive to improve the quality of their cars, because everyone
>who buys a car has no choice but to buy _their_ car.
Thomas:
I enter this fray with some trepitation, but I have a point to make. One of
the myth's of capitalism is stated by Chris above. The implication is that
there would be no or limited innovation without the goad of competition and
there is truth in that statement. However, what may be good in moderation
may not be good in excess and I would opine that improvements are in the
excessive stage, creating a lack of durability as a design feature, vast
misuse of resources, complications caused by obsolence and host of other
negative features such as the great variety of parts and technical skills
needed to keep up with the constant innovation. Y2K may be one example of
the effects of what might in one circumstance be a positive but because of
the efficiencies of capitalism, a simple error in structure was never
corrected and we may now pay the costs for all that neglect in the constant
drive to build a new and better computer or software program.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
