“Is there such a thing as healthy competition in order to make a better, more efficient product or a better medicine? ‘Healthy competition’ simply brings down the price of a product. If you want cheap products, then you must be willing to put up with the effects of ‘healthy competition’. There is no advantage if a product is created cheaply by competition between hundreds of firms, all producing the same thing, if the process involves commercialization, thus diminishing the quality of life.
“We need inexpensive products and if, for example, nations did not spend their resources on arms and strategic reserves but instead put the money into producing products at a price people could pay, that could be achieved. You do not need 100 firms all providing the same service and competing ‘healthily’ among themselves to bring the cost of production down. It might be inexpensive in terms of the dollar tag on it, but what is its cost in social terms? This is the real cost.
“You cannot cost a product only on a dollar index; you have to look at the social result of producing it. Is it right to squander and misuse the resources needed to build 100 different types of automobiles, drain-pipes, doors, or whatever, in order to get down to the lowest possible price, if the social, global and ecological costs are devastating? There is no such thing as ‘healthy competition’. There is either co-operation or competition.
“Co-operation is pro-life, pro-evolution; competition is the reverse. It is the opposite of life; it is against evolution. In time, with the use of robots, every nation will become self-sufficient. We will start with the process of sharing by redistributing the resources of the world, which are produced manually or with instruments of various degrees of efficiency.
‘Healthy competition’ makes an excess of everything, and then the producers compete to sell the product. However, we cannot buy everything that is produced. This is where the myth of choice comes in. Do you buy it because it looks good? Because it lasts a long time? Certainly not for that, not today. Because it is inexpensive? Yes, that is the major consideration. It looks good, and is inexpensive. That is the result of so-called ‘healthy competition’.
“This process is repeated throughout the world. There are 265 million people in the US. China has 1,200 million people, India 1,000 million, Europe some 350-400 million and Japan 120 million. All of these nations are producing the same goods, more or less — some slightly better, some not quite as good, some more or less expensive. Everyone, however, is misusing the resources of the planet. You cannot have this so-called ‘healthy competition’ and infinite choice, producing the same goods multiplied 1,000 times, without squandering the resources of the planet. The developed countries cannot buy and use all that they produce. The developing world cannot, for the most part, afford to buy their share at all.
HENCE THE NECESSITY TO SHARE.
(From a wise one who saw clearly the extent of ignorance that rules the mind of humanity. . . It is time to use simple common sense and find our way out of this crazy maze.)
REFLECTIONS 