Talk:Competition/Archives/2012

Ethymology

Please, include the Ethymology and original meaning of the word. I feel it is very important to mention that present understanding of the word is quite far from it's original meaning, which is of "strive in common". Or that of becoming better together, the sense of fight in honour and respect... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=compete Thank you, Robajz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.105.199 (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide View

There is no such thing as a worldwide view, and there never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.172.158 (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Enron, etc.

Does any one else feel the comment on Enron is a bit misplaced? Bit speculative and non consensus? --(talk)BozMo 22:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Also why should competition be antagonistic as implied? genomes competing to get on the DNA aren't really antagonistic ---(talk)BozMo 22:04, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

In line with the accompanying criticisms, I would suggest that the article needs a major rewrite for style and substance. I've worked on it a little (including the section on sport), but it needs to be enhanced by those with knowledge of the areas reflected by the headings which contain no more than cursory discussions of the subtopics. This is an important topic. soverman 16 Jun 2005 0133 (UTC)

Directness of economic competition

This article says that brand competition is the most direct. Yet my impression is that there is an even more direct form of competition, between identical products, such as otherwise equivalent stores selling the same CD at different prices. I remember this as being a property of pure capitalism. Is there a name for this? Does this make sense? Deco 07:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, one that I have not seen mentioned anywhere before. From a marketing point of view a CD offered for sale in one location is not the same product as the same CD offered for sale in another location. This is because in business a product is much more than a collection of atoms. There are a whole host of psychological, service, and symbolic factors that constitute a product offering. So in your example, locational factors serve as the basis of competition, that is, the products differ due to the convenience of the retail location, the service provided by the staff, the ambiance of the store, the warranty offered at each location, etc., rather than due to differences in the physical product or brand image. Two questions arise. First, "Is competition based on location of availability more direct than competition based on brand image or physical characteristics?", Secondly "Is locational competition different enough from other forms of product/brand level competition that it should constitute a new level of competition?". If you answer "no" to the second question, as most marketing theorist would, then you would also answer the first question in the negative. If you answer "yes" to the second question, then the first question becomes meaningful and could be answered positively or negatively. For my part I would answer both questions in the negative: Locational competition is just one aspect of product/brand level competition, and it is not the case that locational competition is any more direct than other forms of competition at the brand level. However, in regards to the article, it might be useful to explain in more detail what is ment by brand/product level competition. mydogategodshat 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

beef up theory of competition

I would think it would be good to have a quick overview or links to some other studies of competition, such as game theory issues. I'm thinking, for instance, of the prisoner's dilemna and such. AdamDiCarlo 20:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Predator - prey

As far as I know predator - prey relationship is not considered as competition in ecological terms. Are there any sources? --Windom 07:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, predator-prey interactions are not competition, but a separate category of interactions, i.e. predation. It seems that the biological and ecological implications of competition are not clear, competition is a strong drive of evolutionary change but also of species divergence which seems to be predominate. The wording of that section should be reworked to be more concise. For example, this section in the first paragraph: "may be biologically motivated because they provide survival advantages" seems to be at odds with the observation that competition reduces fitness for both.L Hamm 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecological/biological definition of competition

Begon, et al have a working definition of competition as: "an interaction between individuals, brought about by a shared requirement for a resource, and leading to a reduction in survivorship, growth and/or reproduction of at least some of the competing individuals concerned." L Hamm 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion that definition only describes some sides of competition. A proper definition should mention that in a competition the more fit survive better than the less fit. As it is cited above the definition could apply also to a case of a disease being spread by the sharing of the resource without any competition present.InsectIntelligence (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the definition is way to biological in a narrowed sence, it does not reflect the human society aspects. [1]--Aleksd (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Competitiveness

The section on competitiveness is rather different from the referenced article. Does anyone have any particular sources that we could cite for the section? L Hamm 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct and Indirect competition

Indirect competition

Meaning that a company/business has competition but not completely against you for example JD and Footlocker, they both sell trainers and sports clothes but are not the same company.

Direct competition

Meaing that the company has direct competition from another business that is the same as each other, fo example two Tesco's ot two Marks and Spencers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.209.248 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Competition in biology

I am surprised to see the amount of nonsenses written in the discussion. Coerce does not give any competitive advantage, nor is the person who coerces fitter than me.

On the other hand side, in biology, millions of examples have been explained regarding the fact of competition not being the motive for evolution. Otherwise, sharing (genes and resources) has shown to be much more effective in terms of survival if we want to measure the goodness of an organism in these terms. For me, I'd rather go for efficiency as the measuring concept for an organism success. This means, it doesn't necessarily have to be the most present in quantity, it must be the most efficient in the case the situation changes, and that happens mostly by cooperation. I have what you need, I share it with you, and the whole LIFE goes on. If I am too "darwinian fit" I'll probably finish my resources and kill myself by doing so. That is the way the capitalist sistem works, by depleting the resources as soon as possible for the sake of competition. I therefore think that the term "competition" and the biological concept arosen is wrong. Competition is human capacity that has almost nothing to do with the efficiency in maintaining the balances that keep life.

About direct and indirect competition, the difference is that direct means phyisical struggle, and indirect, just an indirect interaction in the obtention of a certain resource, like flowers "would compete" for the bees to spread their pollen. However it is nonsense again to talk about competition between organisms which are not conscious, since competition requires an intention to compete.

Javier Hermosa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.125.117 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not vote for the Green Party or Nader. Sorry. 12.192.132.130 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)when two or more people fight of some kind.

I'm more for Noam Chomsky, and I'm more of a biologist than an ecologist, and I haven't asked anyone to vote any colour. I just explained a different view for competition which arises from different scientific studies. By the way, don't feel sorry, it's me who feels sorry about you. --80.39.206.8 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Javier Hermosa

I agree with Javier: competition is not good, it's evil. One person kills another to get his higher paying job! Corporations destroy small businesses, while not creating enough JOBS. And Walmart could conceivably destroy most other corporations because of lower prices because they pay workers tiny wages which no one can live on. Capitalists don't think people would cooperate if given the chance, but they would. Stars4change (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare birds to humans

"If birds compete for a limited water supply during a drought, the more suited birds will survive to reproduce and improve the population." So you're saying that when humans compete for water "the more suited humans will survive etc."? So most people are "destined" to die? Is that somehow considered good to capitalists? Stars4change (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)