some guy on AOL-TWX

[kayak3]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> In other words, the concentration argument is (as economists like to
> say) mis-specified. The problem with our big media is less a matter
> of size than the structural conditions under which they operate: the
> imperative of maximizing profit (and audience share) under
> competitive conditions.
> 
> It's that imperative that leads to concentration, as the strong
> combine and the weak are winnowed out. And it's that imperative that
> leads editors and producers to devise the toxic mix of convention and
> sensation that concentration theorists blame on size.
> 
> The Lewinsky affair is a perfect illustration. News outlets competed
> for scoops-mainly leaks from interested parties-to lure viewers and
> readers. But had the president been removed from office, he would
> have been succeeded by Gore, a less scampish personality, but a
> politician with opinions virtually identical to Clinton's.
> 
> In that sense, it was an ideal story for the American media-much ado
> about nothing. Just as competition explains content, it also explains
> concentration.
> 
> There's a sentimental view that competition leads to diversity in
> both content and the number of voices. In fact, it leads to sameness
> in content, as everyone imitates everyone else (again, as we saw in
> the Lewinsky affair). And of course, competition leads to increasing
> concentration, as the economic pressures of competition favor players
> with the biggest claim to shelf space. Left to its own devices, the
> market will deliver homogeneity and bigness. The only antidote to
> these tendencies is government policy to restrain combination and
> subsidize the offbeat-not exactly the most fashionable view these
> days, of course.

I've have been argueing with some leftish people about their assumption
that competition is necessary in a market economy and that market
economies should be used for the basic structure for socialism.

In my studies of psychology I've found that there is very little
research that indicates that competition is an effective way to
structure human relations. Whether in schools or a work setting,
competition impeeds performance instead of stimulating it. Groups of
people are more creative, productive and are happier when their
relations are structured around cooperation instead of competition. 

Taking this into account I have to question any system that works best
when its participants are induced to compete with one another. If
capitalism needs competition to function fairly and effeciently, then
there must be something wrong with system as whole. This is why I'm
baffled as to why so many people who call themselves leftists argue for
more competition.

But according to Dougs article, even capitalists institutions are not
improved by more competition. I'd be interested in the thoughts of
others as they relate to the need of competition in economic systems,
whether they be capitalist or socialist.

Brad Hatch