There are two mistakes in the quoted section: 1. Even under perfect competition, there is still a surplus. But it goes to the consumer. Example: a loaf of brea

There are two mistakes in the quoted section: 1. Even under perfect competition, there is still a surplus. But it goes to the consumer. Example: a loaf of bread costs 1$ to produce, is sold for 1$ and delivers 3$ of value (economists call this value “utility”) to the consumer. In that case, the surplus was 2$ and fully went to the consumer. 2. The implied assumption is that perfect competition is “normal”. In reality, perfectly competitive markets are rare and there is a balance between firms constantly trying to find or create new market and competition entering the market. For example, Nike would insist that their sneakers are special and different from all the others. For the consumers that fall for these marketing tactics, Nike has no competition, because it is the only place where you can buy Nike sneakers. Same applies for most other products. It is quite rare to have a situation where two firms offer perfect substitutes. Therefore, perfect competition is not “normal”.