[On September 24, 2009, FEE President Lawrence W. Reed participated in a Fraser Institute live chat series entitled “Ask the Professor”. To read the full article and questions answered by Lawrence W. Reed, visit the Fraser Institute website.]
“Gym Now Stresses Cooperation, Not Competition” blared a headline in the July 5, 2000, edition of the New York Times. The story was about an elementary school where “confrontational” games, team sports, and elimination rounds were changed or scrapped so that differences between students’ athletic abilities would be minimized. For instance, they would be no more “strike-outs” when the students played baseball. Every team would get an equal 10 minutes at bat, then 10 minutes in the field. If a student was not good at swinging a bat, he or she could hit the ball off a tee instead. Traditional dodge ball, deemed too rough and tumble, was banned altogether. Everybody would get to “win.”
Perhaps this emphasis on inclusiveness, self-esteem, and “kumbaya” is fine for a grade school gym class, but it would make for a rather boring Olympics. And were it imposed as the guiding rule in the world of production and trade, it would condemn millions to poverty and early death.
In economics, competition is not the antithesis of cooperation; rather, it is one of its highest and most beneficial forms. That may seem counterintuitive at first. Doesn’t competition necessitate rivalrous or even “dog-eat-dog” behaviour? Don’t some competitors lose out to those who are better, faster, or cheaper? A definition is in order. Competition in the marketplace means nothing less than striving for excellence in the service of others for self-benefit. In other words, sellers cooperate with consumers by catering to their needs and preferences.
To read the full article and questions answered by Lawrence W. Reed, visit the Fraser Institute website.