4 ms·

The Guardian like to run these stories about how terrible competition is without acknowledging that no other system in reality actually fixes the problem, no-on

by cmdkeen 12y ago

The Guardian like to run these stories about how terrible competition is without acknowledging that no other system in reality actually fixes the problem, no-one is actually ruled by philosopher kings. IT security is notoriously bad in many governmental areas, non-profits, universities etc as Manning showed us. The Soviet Union after all gave us the Stakhanovite movement. The difference is that in a competitive environment you get creative destruction, where things that go wrong benefit competitors who then learn from the problem. Yes there are all sorts of problems when banks become too big to fail, it's far worse when there is only one bank. Competition is an amazing thing - this salesman who moaned who the Guardian has an opportunity to start selling better encryption software, disaster planning and testing consultancy services, virtualisation software or toolkits that stop random people messing with production server they don't understand.

gsnedders 12y ago
It's on Comment is Free, which is relatively open-access (they exert no real editorial control over what gets published).
Retra 12y ago
Competition is only valuable as a means to attain greater cooperation. Once you start sacrificing cooperative results by taking shortcuts, worshipping selfishness, or keeping your failures secret, then your competitive environment is doing more harm than good. It is good when a team _gets together_ to beat an opponent. It is good when a company _works with it's clients_ to build a better product. So cooperation is the other system that, in reality, actually fixes the problem. Almost every significant human achievement has been a result our mastery of language, which is clearly a tool of great cooperation, not of competition.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  Why do we cooperate though? Internet Explorer didn't get better through cooperation, despite having a big team, until there was competition. The Space Race was competitive with the Soviets. Cooperation isn't the inverse of shortcuts, selfishness or keeping failures secret. Cooperation between companies that are supposed to compete, the forming of cartels, is a really bad thing after all. Humanity is competitive, social creatures. Cooperation starts at the family and tribal level which morphed into nation states (eventually), but it is fundamentally driven by competition.

by cmdkeen 12y ago

gsnedders 12y ago

It's on Comment is Free, which is relatively open-access (they exert no real editorial control over what gets published).

Retra 12y ago

Competition is only valuable as a means to attain greater cooperation. Once you start sacrificing cooperative results by taking shortcuts, worshipping selfishness, or keeping your failures secret, then your competitive environment is doing more harm than good. It is good when a team _gets together_ to beat an opponent. It is good when a company _works with it's clients_ to build a better product. So cooperation is the other system that, in reality, actually fixes the problem. Almost every significant human achievement has been a result our mastery of language, which is clearly a tool of great cooperation, not of competition.

cmdkeen 12y ago
Why do we cooperate though? Internet Explorer didn't get better through cooperation, despite having a big team, until there was competition. The Space Race was competitive with the Soviets. Cooperation isn't the inverse of shortcuts, selfishness or keeping failures secret. Cooperation between companies that are supposed to compete, the forming of cartels, is a really bad thing after all. Humanity is competitive, social creatures. Cooperation starts at the family and tribal level which morphed into nation states (eventually), but it is fundamentally driven by competition.