Whoever claims that economic competition represents 'survival of the fittest' in the sense of the law of the jungle, provides the clearest possible evidence of his lack of knowledge of economics.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way.
Unregulated competition is a naive metaphor for anarchy.
Competition helps people figure it out.
Economics is about creating win-win situations. But in sports, someone loses.
Nature abhors a hero. For one thing, he violates the law of conservation of energy. For another, how can it be the survival of the fittest when the fittest keeps putting himself in situations where he is most likely to be creamed?
The delicate and intricate pattern of competition and cooperation in the economic behavior of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of Stockholm offers a challenge to the economist that is perhaps as complex as the challenges of the physicist and the chemist.
If you change the rules of the market, you can be more successful than your competitors.
Everybody agrees that you want competition. But you have to have rules of fair competition if you want to have competitors to enter the market.
There's a very good reason for why economics developed the way it did, and that is that in many situations, the assumption that people will exploit the opportunities available to them is very plausible, and it simplifies the analysis of how markets will behave.
For the exploitation of human greed, they have devised comparison and competition. Right from childhood on, we are indoctrinated to compare and compete, and there is a word, a phrase: 'free and fair competition.'