#fair competition

They want to change the rules of a race, to say you can’t sprint to the finish line, because the white man didn’t win? Was Joshua Jackson supposed to stop running because white dude was almost at the finish line? GTFOH!!!

Unbelievable that people act like he was cheated out of a win. Everyone knows if you have a sprint left in you, you give it your all. Congrats Joshua Jackson!

When people in power start changing the rules mid-game because they’re about to lose, that’s not competition—that’s control. And when it keeps happening in ways that disadvantage Black competitors, we’re going to call it exactly what it is.

Same thing we are seeing with the MAGA Cult Republican Party. See themselves losing so instead of changing their ideas and how they are governing the American people they decide to rig the election. It's something many white people do on the regular.

If you’ve got a sprint left, you run. Period. The real issue is people trying to move the finish line when they don’t like who’s about to win—and we’ve seen who that tends to impact.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 11, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

On Friday, as President Joe Biden signed “An Executive Order Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” he echoed the language of his predecessors. “[C]ompetition keeps the economy moving and keeps it growing,” he said. “Fair competition is why capitalism has been the world’s greatest force for prosperity and growth…. But what we’ve seen over the past few decades is less competition and more concentration that holds our economy back.”

Biden listed how prescription drugs, hearing aids, internet service, and agricultural supplies are all overpriced in the U.S. because of a lack of competition (RFD TV, the nation’s rural channel, has a long-running ad complaining of the cost of hearing aids). He also noted that noncompete clauses make it hard for workers to change jobs, another issue straight out of the late nineteenth century, when southern states tried to keep prices low by prohibiting employers from hiring Black workers away from their current jobs.

“I’m a proud capitalist,” Biden said. “I know America can’t succeed unless American business succeeds…. But let me be very clear: Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism; it’s exploitation. Without healthy competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want and treat you however they want…. “[W]e know we’ve got a problem—a major problem.  But we also have an incredible opportunity. We can bring back more competition to more of the country, helping entrepreneurs and small businesses get in the game, helping workers get a better deal, helping families save money every month. The good news is: We’ve done it before.”

Biden reached into our history to reclaim our long tradition of opposing economic consolidation. Calling out both Roosevelt presidents—Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who oversaw part of the Progressive Era, and Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who oversaw the New Deal—Biden celebrated their attempt to rein in the power of big business, first by focusing on the abuses of those businesses, and then by championing competition.

Civil War era Republicans had organized around the idea that the American economy enjoyed what they called a “harmony of interest.” By that, they meant that everyone had the same economic interests. People at the bottom of the economy, people who drew value out of the products of nature—trees, or fish, or grain—produced value through their hard work. They created more value than they could consume, and this value, in the form of capital, employed people on the next level of the economy: shoemakers, dry goods merchants, cabinetmakers, and so on. They, in turn, produced more than they could consume, and their excess supported a few industrialists and financiers at the top of the pyramid who, in their turn, employed those just starting out. In this vision, the economy was a web in which every person shared a harmony of interest.

But by the 1880s, this idea that all Americans shared the same economic interest had changed into the idea that protecting American businesses would be good for everyone. American businessmen had begun to consolidate their enterprises into trusts, bringing a number of corporations under the same umbrella. The trusts stifled competition and colluded to raise the prices paid by consumers. Their power and funding gave them increasing power over lawmakers. As wealth migrated upward and working Americans felt like they had less and less control over their lives, they began to wonder what had happened to the equality for which they had fought the Civil War.

Labor leaders, newspapers, and Democratic lawmakers began to complain about the power of the wealthy in society and to claim the economic game was rigged, but their general critiques of the economy simply left them open to charges of being “socialists” who wanted to overturn society. Congress in 1890 finally gave in and passed an antitrust act, but it was so toothless that only one senator in the staunchly pro-business Senate voted against it, and no one in the House of Representatives voted no.  

Then, around 1900, the so-called muckrakers hit their stride. Muckrakers were journalists who took on the political corruption and the concentration of wealth that plagued their era, but rather than making general moral statements, they did deep research into the workings of specific industries and political machines—Standard Oil, for example, and Minneapolis city government—and revealed the details behind the general outrage.

Their stories built pressure to regulate the robber barons, as they were called by then, but Congress, dominated by business interests, had no interest. Instead, President Theodore Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard Taft, tended to rein in the trusts through the executive branch of the government, especially by legal action undertaken by the Department of Justice.

On Friday, Biden promised to use the power of the executive branch to rein in corporations, much as Theodore Roosevelt did during his terms of office. But there was more to Biden’s statement than that. His emphasis on restoring competition is from the next historical phase of antitrust action.

In the 1912 election, political language turned away from the evils of trusts and toward the economic competition so central to American life. Both Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson centered their campaigns around the idea that big business was strangling competition. Wilson called for a “New Freedom” that would get rid of the trusts once and for all and return the nation to a world of small enterprise and opportunity. Roosevelt scoffed at this idea. He talked of the “New Nationalism,” in which a large government would restore competition by regulating big businesses. (He said that if you got rid of trusts and then looked away, they would immediately spring up again.)

While their solutions were different, both Roosevelt and Wilson had reframed the stratified economy not solely as a problem, but also as an opportunity. Trimming the sails of the corporations was not an attack on the liberty of industrialists, but rather a restoration of the competition that had, in the past, enabled the country’s economy to thrive. And, once elected, Wilson managed to get key items of that agenda passed through Congress.

That positive emphasis on competition carried into the administration of the next Roosevelt president, FDR. Biden noted that FDR called for Congress to pass an economic bill of rights, including “the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies.” And indeed, the idea of restoring a level playing field for all businesses, rather than letting them succeed or fail based on the whims of economic wirepullers, persuaded businessmen who had previously opposed regulation to line up behind the establishment of our Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Americans have lost this tradition since 1980, Biden said, when we abandoned the “fundamental American idea that true capitalism depends on fair and open competition.” Reframing business regulation as “laws to promote competition,” he promised 72 specific actions to enforce antitrust laws, stop “abusive actions by monopolies,” and end “bad mergers that lead to mass layoffs, higher prices, fewer options for workers and consumers alike.”

For 40 years, the Republican Party has offered a vision of America as a land of hyperindividualism, in which any government intervention in the economy is seen as an attack on individual liberty because it hampers the accumulation of wealth. Biden’s speech on Friday reclaims a different theme in our history, that of government protecting individualism by keeping the economic playing field level.

—-

Notes:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/09/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-an-executive-order-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

The “FT” in NAFTA may stand for “free trade,” but that doesn’t mean the North American Free Trade Agreement is really a free-trade agreement. It would have been more accurately called the North American Managed Trade Agreement, or NAMTA. Unfortunately, in the current discussions about revising the pact, the Trump administration would make it more of a managed-trade pact. We’re moving in the wrong direction.

The agreement among the United States, Mexico, and Canada went into effect in 1994. In an important respect — the elimination of tariffs on most products — it created a free-trade zone in North America. Trade among the three countries has flourished.

But in other respects NAFTA contradicts free-trade principles. After all, had the real goal been fully free trade, the three governments could have simply abolished all trade barriers. Instead, they negotiated a long, complicated agreement containing phase-outs, exceptions, and side agreements on labor, the environment, and intellectual property — all of which undercut the reason for free trade: to realize full consumer welfare from the division of labor, specialization, and comparative advantage.

NAFTA’s own statement of objectives indicates that free trade would be subject to other considerations. While the first objective is to “eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties,” the second declares an intention to “promote conditions of fair competition.”

“Fair competition,” like “fair trade,” is a common protectionist euphemism meaning that foreign producers with access to cheaper labor and resources, or subject to less stringent government regulations, shouldn’t be able to benefit fully from those advantages. That is hardly what the original advocates of laissez-faire meant by free trade.

Moreover, the “free trade” agreement embraces trade barriers against the rest of the world. Regional protectionism is still protectionism and hence anti-consumer. So even if free trade had been fully established in North America, the agreement would not have produced the global freedom Adam Smith envisioned in The Wealth of Nations, in which he wrote that “the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.” Since the division of labor bestows inestimable benefits on mankind, the bigger the free-trade area the better.

Nevertheless, President Trump condemns NAFTA as a free-trade disaster for the United States. Considering that Mexico’s pre-NAFTA barriers to U.S. goods were higher than America’s barriers to Mexican goods and that some U.S. agricultural goods remain protected from competition, Trump’s complaint is at first hard to discern. But now that discussions on how to change NAFTA are underway, Trump’s motive is clear. What he wants is a deal that favors certain American industrial interests. What he means by fair trade is government-managed trade that would help favored American industries at the expense of foreign producers, other American industries, and consumers.

🔎 WHY COMPETITION MATTERS? © Philippine Competition Commission (PCC)

1) Competition keeps the economy working well

In a competitive market, there are many buyers and sellers. The price of goods or services is not controlled by any one entity. Therefore, businesses must focus on meeting consumer demand and strive to create unique and superior products compared to others.

2) For Consumers

When businesses compete, consumers benefit through lower prices, more product choices, and better-quality goods and services.

3) For Businesses

🔎 WHAT IS FAIR COMPETITION?: Competition in the fair market is advantageous for the overall economy. In the absence of competition, companies lack the incentive to offer convenient and efficient services to consumers, and there is no drive to introduce innovative products.

Markets that exhibit higher levels of innovation, maintain a fair playing field, and safeguard competition attract greater investments.

The National Communications Authority (NCA) has responded to public concerns, particularly on social media, regarding high internet data pricing and the designation of MTN as a Significant Market Power (SMP). The NCA reassures consumers that it is committed to fair competition and protecting their interests in the telecommunications sector. As the regulatory body, the NCA’s decision to classify…