August 13, 2012

This past weekend, the U.S. men’s basketball team won the gold medal for our country. While their win was expected, it was not guaranteed. Close games against Lithuania and Argentina reminded us of how much the level of competition in basketball has increased since 1992.

The 1992 summer games were significant for the U.S. because it was the first time U.S. professional athletes were permitted to compete in the Olympics, launching what is still known today as the Dream Team. According to Heritage’s Rich Tucker:

The competition seemed unfair at the time. All it seemed to do was highlight just how much better the best American basketball players were than the best players from everywhere else. However, such open competition actually helped the rest of the world to raise its game.

Competition ultimately benefits everyone, Tucker goes on to explain its role in the economy:

No company or country can maintain an edge indefinitely. Free trade and open competition help poorer countries focus on things they can do well and raise their living standards. And that’s exactly what’s been happening, under American leadership, for several decades.

Do you think a competitive market is a healthy market?

Comments (10)

William Grey - August 14, 2012

A competitive market place is the ensign of prosperity. No competition is the doom of civilization.

John Smith - August 14, 2012

Yes, a competitive market will create better goods and services because a business will have to do better than their competitors to keep customers. This includes making the product or service cheaper in price, better in quality and easier to get.

I believe that if regulations are took away, then the quality of the goods will get better naturally because of the reasons mentioned above. Competition would also be a tax free alternative to regulation.

Ruth - August 14, 2012

Yes, I think a competitive market is a healthy market. That is what has made this country great.

Ed Gardner - August 15, 2012

The capitalist market will eventually fail if competition is removed or compromised.

Var St. Jeor - August 15, 2012

In a free market, competition can improve cost, but not necessarily quality or performance. Cheep does not always equate with being better. Other things must be in play for quality or performance to improve. For example: 1) There must be a commitment by the business to the long-term, and not just to a quick buck. 2) People must have a desire for & be willing to pay for the cost of quality. I know one business man who wanted to compete in the market of making certain ceramic statuary of Jesus. There was a market for the average quality, lower cost item already being made, so he decided to produce a much higher quality version of the same thing. More detail, improved ceramic quality, smoother and finer grained, etc. Very few of the higher quality product actually sold, while the average quality item kept selling like mad. Why? As it turns out, young families wanted the statuary for their homes. Young families have kids, and part of the purposes of the statuary was to help teach their kids of Jesus. Kids tend to do things that break such fragile statuary, playing with it, throwing things, etc. So, rather than paying several hundred dollars for quality, they opted for the lower-end product. It was “good enough.” 3) Competition must be consistent, if the competition goes away, then “competition,” the thing that caused the issue of lower cost and increased quality and performance (the desired traits), is gone. At that point, how does one maintain the desired traits?

Margaret - August 15, 2012

Competition is a basis of creativity in business. Would Microsoft, Apple, Ford, Rolls Royce have developed and all the other competitors if it wasn’t?
And each one strives to be better continually. New entrepreneurs arise because they think they have discovered the better baseball cover, etc. Exercise for the brain is what it is to some, pride in achievement and marketers thrive on new products to sell and consumers are glad to have them.
What better stimulus for an economy than creators through competition?

lois pera - August 19, 2012

Competition is the only way…….especially for insurance companies if allowed to compete across state lines……Killing competition kills America.

Steven Rankens - August 20, 2012

That’s what Capitalism is all about, but with Obama his agenda is to turn the country into a socialist-welfare state. He has no intention of supporting the free market, private property, individual rights. Capitalism has created more jobs and healthy economies that any form of government. Competition has proven results, and free markets can get us there. We need to replace, repeal, and remove Obama! If Obama get’s re-elected we will be HOPELESSLY CHANGED!

Dougral - August 21, 2012

The UN seeks to eliminate poverty via forced redistribution of wealth and a globe-girdling bureaucracy. Ironically the idea that can actually do the job is free enterprise. Countries that adopt it will flourish and countries that reject it will decline.

Lorena Steffen - August 24, 2012

I completely agree with all of the above comments, It is something I learned as a child in school and in the workplace as an adult. If we want to be competitive, we have to do a little better than the competition. I think that is the problem with government financing. There is not incentive to do better because Uncle Sam has deep pockets and he will bail us out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>