Category: Competition

Trophies for Everyone: Argumentative Essay

In a world outside the bubble of childhood, real-life challenges enter into people’s paths whether they like it or not. It is something inevitable, and it happens in every single person’s life. For this reason, being prepared of losing helps us face the harsh reality of life. Whenever kids join competitions or contests, most of them spend time and effort preparing for these academic events. However, no matter how much effort and time they all put in, there should only be one winner who excels and brings home a trophy among them all. The concept of giving trophies to everyone would only lead to giving less significance to the concept of winning. In the event of a person losing, they learn real-life lessons that not everything moves and works the way they want them to. They can’t have everything they want in life, no matter how much they yearn for it. There are always times when people tend to not get what they want. Trophies for all diminish the value of actually getting a trophy for winning, convey an inaccurate message that all kids should be marked as winners, and lessens the true value of effort.

Losing teaches young children to exert their best efforts to reach their goals. Teachers usually say, ‘Practice until you get it right.’ Kids would not actually try and get things right because they tend to lose the eagerness of reaching the first place, knowing the fact that they get rewarded no matter how well they do. As time flies by, people tend to fail on reaching the goal of building a strong mindset toward winning. According to Vivian Diller, ‘The problem isn’t the profusion of positive reinforcement kids get nowadays, but rather the failure to distinguish the accomplishments that deserve it, from those that don’t.’ Giving and teaching lessons are more important to one’s life, rather than handing out trophies as consolation prizes. Trophies are only for the winners who actually deserve them, and giving these to all removes the prestige that they have.

The relentless training and practices lead to a performance of a lifetime. Esteem and pride come along from doing what athletes and competitors actually love to do. Not even a trophy can define how big of a winner they are by actually just doing their best in each game. In source one, Klein says that playing is already intrinsically rewarding and that one should not get a trophy just because one played well. Rewarding trophies to all is often misunderstood by children and all can be immediate winners just by participating and showing up to competitions. It is undoubtedly unfair for an individual to receive equal acknowledgment from those who win. Allowing children to lose would help them sustain actual battles later in life. Them keeping in mind that they will win no matter what place, sets them up for failure in the long run. If it were not for failures, no one could ever surpass challenges in life.

Everyone loses at some point in their lives. Children should be taught proper qualities to take these losses with honor as they grow up. Believing that they have always won will only result in pride and failed efforts. Children would come to think that they can go through life being mediocre and still receive recognition in whatever they do. True winners have always gone through losing. In source three, Vivian Diller states that not giving participation trophies teaches kids about both success and failure. Nowadays, only selected people put their hearts out to earn the trophies that they truly deserve. In fact, providing participation trophies bring out people’s inner indolence by not wanting to work hard if they get rewarded for something below their best. In facing life challenges, people lose their dedication to overcoming obstacles that come their way. Kids should be reminded that as they grow, working hard is the key to success.

Trophies should be associated with victory in the competition and not just by showing up. However, Lisa Hefferman’s ‘In Defense of Participation Trophies: Why They Really Do Teach The Right Values,’ states that giving out participation trophies is important for the reason that they symbolize the remembrance of experience in competitions. Although kids put time and effort to prepare for competitions, they should also learn that people do not always get what they want. Outside competitions, challenges arise, and people do not surpass these just by giving an effort. Participation should be recognized but celebrated with words of enlightenment instead of trophies. In addition to that, young competitors should keep in mind that defeat is a motive to make room for improvement. Without trophies, kids would give their best effort to strive for gold.

The idea of providing a trophy to every competitor minimizes the worth of earning a trophy, sends a false message that everyone is a winner, and reduces the pure sense of working hard. Coping with failure is one problem kids have, although it serves as an important aspect of life. Winning and losing go beyond sports and activities as they mature. Kids who are used to getting everything they want tend to lack discipline and the inner drive to focus on what comes along their journey in life. Participation trophies are not advisable for young kids to practice the significance of winning by giving their best efforts. As young children grow and slowly mature, they need to experience loss and learn from the lessons that come with every situation. Alongside this, the value of hard work and success would be essential and very much prevalent in their lives.

Free Market Competition and Monopoly

Businesses in the modern market are required to continuously adapt and adjust to the changes in the market in order to stay competitive. Competition is an important aspect of a market and is widely known to be the process of operating in a market concurrently with other competitors in order to gain profit (Riggs, 2015). In order for competitors to stay competitive, they complete through various means which will be discusses in this paper. However, if a monopoly is introduced into a market, this can significantly hamper other competitors’ ability to compete. The purpose of this paper is to explore how competition operates in the free market, what it means for a business to have monopoly powers, ways and reasons businesses use political means to gain a competitive advantage, and finally discuss whether governments should act to create monopolies to encourage competition.

According to Stucke, some consumer benefits that competition contributes may include lower costs, higher quality goods and services, more variety, etc. (Stucke, 2013). Thus, it is essential for an entrepreneur to discover the gaps in the market which they consider have not been satisfied in order to maximize their profit (Heyne et al., 2014). Entrepreneurial profit is the gain that an entrepreneur receives for satisfying consumer demands in a market (Heyne et al., 2014). This can be achieved through entrepreneurs engaging in arbitrage which involves rearranging products to where they are more highly valued (Heyne et al., 2014). Also, they can use innovation to earn profit by constantly investigating better ways to satisfy consumer demand through improving quality of goods and services, lowering costs, etc. (Heyne et al., 2014). Lastly, entrepreneurs often imitate other entrepreneurs who were successful in the hopes that it will reciprocate the same benefits (Heyne et al., 2014). Although competition may seem beneficial, there are some downsides that need to be considered for both the consumer and the producer. Some downsides to competition for businesses may include being obligated to lower prices to the point where expenses are exceeding income, as well as, becoming overwhelmed with too much capital that is not earning them any profit which could be allocated elsewhere (Gartenstein, 2018). In addition, competition may be a disadvantage to consumers as it may lead to producers exploiting or manipulating customers to believe that their product is of better quality because of its high price (Stucke, 2013).

Moreover, since competition is highly relative to consumer demands, businesses compete by serving consumers better than their competitors (Heyne et al., 2014). However, businesses often pursue restrictions to sustain their profit opportunities, a common this is achieved is through the creation of a monopoly (Heyne et al., 2014). A monopoly is known as a market structure where there is a sole seller, with no close substitutes for the product produced and there are barriers to entry (Koutsoyiannis, 1975). Most often, they occur because the government has involved itself to provide one firm the exclusive rights to produce a particular good or service (Gans, King & Mankiw, 2012). If a firm has monopoly power, this means that they have the capacity to control supply and price regardless of the market (Galbraith, 1936). As a result, there is no supply curve for a monopoly because a monopolist is a price maker, and so it would not be useful to consider the number a firm would produce, because they set prices at the same time as they choose the quantity to supply (Gans, et al., 2012). Governments can create monopolies through regulation and taxes which constricts competition (Paul, 2016). Big businesses are able to better comply with government regulations as they can afford the costs as well as hiring lobbyists to assure that any new laws or regulations favor them (Paul, 2016). Patents, copyright laws and trademarks are all examples of the government creating a monopoly in order to serve public interests (Gans et al., 2012). Businesses use political means to hamper or eliminate their competitors because a monopoly allows them to produce any quantity for any price chosen (Gans et al., 2012). Big businesses often attempt to use political means to hamper their competition through interacting with the government which leads to “lower costs, enhanced bargaining power in supply relations, trade promotion and protection, and protection from entry and product substitution” (McWilliams, Van Fleet & Cory, 2002).

Furthermore, monopolies can be attained in a free market through natural monopolies. A natural monopoly develops when a one business is able to supply a good or service to the whole market at a lower cost than multiple other firms (Gans et al., 2012). Most often, firms operating in a natural monopoly are not overly worried about new entrants penetrating their monopoly power, rather they are concerned with ensuring that the government is protecting them in order to maintain their monopoly position (Gans et al., 2012). This is because potential entrants are less likely to be able to produce that the same low costs as the monopolist, therefore, they will only have a small effect on the market (Gans et al., 2012).

There is considerable debate surrounding whether governments should act to create monopolies in order to encourage competition, or to take no action either way. Monopolies have been shown to be detrimental to smaller businesses, however, as long as the government is acting to serve the public interest, there will be benefits for the market (Gans et al., 2012). An example of this can be seen where the Australian government, up until October 2001, gave monopoly of the .com.au interest addresses to the Melbourne IT company which is beneficial for the market because it ensures consistency (Gans et al., 2012). In addition, another widely accepted reason why governments should act to create barriers to entry is the requirement of licenses for different business ventures (Manier, 2010). Licenses are vital as they protect the public’s interests as well as protecting existing businesses from potential competition (Manier, 2010). On the other hand, creating monopolies could negatively affect consumers as monopolists can provide lower quality goods for a high price because they dominate the market and so they are not threatened to produce better and cheaper goods or services (Leigh, 2019).

To conclude, free market competition can be beneficial to the consumer in a number of ways and thus entrepreneurs can earn profits by ensuring that these benefits are improved and maintained. Businesses often seek to restrict competition in order to preserve their own profit opportunities and this can be down through creating a monopoly by providing businesses with grants. However, the grants are beneficial to competition if they aim to protect the public’s interests.

Essay on Oligopoly, Perfect Competition, Cournot’s and Bertrand’s Models

Oligopoly is one of the four market structures in the world and the other three are perfect competition, monopoly, and monopolistic competition. All these market structures have different features and characteristics that set them apart, but among them is a perfect competition that often serves as a benchmark for others. Indeed, perfect competition, in addition to promoting economic efficiency, provides a good basis for the comparison of different types of markets in the real world. Oligopolistic markets have two main models which are Bertrand’s competition model (BCM) and Cournot’s competition model (CCM). This essay aims to explain oligopoly and its corresponding features regarding perfect competition as a benchmark and also the difference between the two models of the oligopolistic market.

Key Features of Oligopoly Versus Perfect Competition as a Reference

An oligopoly is a market structure that involves few producers and suppliers (www.oecd.org). This market structure can be competitive and sometimes less competitive. Some of its fundamental characteristics include the existence of a small number of firms, differentiated or homogeneous products, and barriers to entry. Examples of oligopoly include cell phones (Huawei, Apple, and Samsung have over 50% market share) and motor vehicles in the United States (Toyota, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler collectively have almost 60% market share. To identify an oligopoly, the Herfindahl-Hirschman index or concentration ratio can be used (boycewire.com).

On the other hand, is a perfect competition where the market has many sellers with no individual advantage over each other as they sell the same product at the same price. Here, firms engage in the production of identical goods, market share is not a price determining factor, barriers to entry or exit don’t apply, and buyers have perfect or complete knowledge of what they want in terms of purchase. Examples of perfectly competitive industries include agriculture, online shopping, and foreign exchange markets (boycewire.com).

While competition in an oligopolistic market is legal, collusion is generally considered illegal. Compared to monopolies, oligopolistic firms produce larger quantities and charge a lower price to advance their interests. However, companies may sometimes collude to set prices or production levels for the market to maximize industry profits. When this happens, the colluding firms act like a monopoly. Moreover, such actions are difficult to coordinate, and companies caught in such compromised practices can be severely sanctioned (Fershtman and Pakes, 1999; Besanko et al., 2013).

Moreover, firms in an oligopolistic market compete, driving down the prices of products (Bertrand’s competition model) in the market. In this sense, oligopoly resembles perfect market competition, and as such competition is a key feature of oligopoly (Besanko et al., 2013).

Furthermore, an oligopolistic market is characterized by the presence in the market of a limited number of large and small companies that determine supply and demand. In contrast, the perfect competition market involves many producers. Again, in an oligopolistic market, the number of firms often ranges from two to ten and together control more than 50% of the market share. This high percentage gives oligopolistic firms the power to control and dictate prices and supply, so companies follow the actions of competitors to maintain their position in the market. For example, if one company lowers its prices, all the others will follow (Besanko et al., 2013).

Additionally, an oligopolistic market has high entry barriers, unlike the perfect competition which has free entry and exit. In the economic context, these barriers will allow an already existing oligopolistic company (incumbents) to benefit from an economic profit and at the same time cause losses for new companies (entrants) entering this sector of activity. These barriers can be strategic or structural to entry such as patents, startup costs, and brand loyalty. These barriers to entry cause the oligopolies to maintain their position and in doing so make more gains due to insufficient competition hence the difference between oligopoly and perfect competition (Besanko et al., 2013).

Another factor that marks the difference between the oligopolistic market and that of perfect competition is the mode of operation of market prices. Indeed, in the latter, prices are slightly higher than marginal cost, which leads to low or zero profits for the companies operating there. However, due to strong market power, oligopolies can raise prices, which gives them the advantage of earning more profits. Whereas a reduction in prices in this leads to a reduction in prices by competitors, thus, most oligopolies, don’t lower their prices due to fear of not making enough profit.

Interdependence is another essential characteristic of an oligopoly. Often a company’s decision on price and quantity affects the entire industry (its competitors). In this scenario, game theory is often used to analyze the market. Even though oligopolies are interdependent, they hold shares of market power, which means that a single firm cannot dictate price or supply, although this can sometimes lead to collusion. Oligopolies are often afraid to raise their prices so as not to lose their customers to other competitors just like in perfect competition (boycewire.com).

Overview and Comparison of Bertrand’s and Cournot’s Competition Models in Oligopolistic Markets

Cournot’s Competition Model (Product)

The demand curve in the oligopolistic market is downward sloping which implies that price is related to the quantity produced and that a firm’s output affects its prices and those of its competitors. The result is a strategic environment where the profit-maximizing level of production is relative to the level of production of competitors. This analysis is based on an 1838 model introduced by Antoine Augustin Cournot, which is like the 1949 Nash equilibrium concept introduced by John Nash (Vives, 1989).

The CCM considers two firms producing identical goods which will enable them to levy the same prices for their products. In CCM, each firm chooses the quantity Q1 and Q2 to produce based on the output of the other firm and maximizes its profits by taking it as given. Price equilibrium occurs when demand equals supply (price clears the market). In this model, all companies can sell their products thanks to their commitment to producing, and this does not generate any additional cost. However, in a situation where a company cannot sell all its products, it may continue to reduce its selling price until all the products are sold. A key feature here is that this model is based on assumptions by both firms about how much product a rival firm should produce (Besanko et al., 2013).

Nash equilibrium similar to CCM is the solution concept in game theory that describes how two or more players can achieve equilibrium if they each know the equilibrium strategies of the other player (Nadav and Piliouras, 2010).

Bertrand’s Competition Model (Price Setters)

Bertrand’s model assumes that each firm sets its price based on its rival’s price and that each firm stands ready to sell the quantity demanded at that price. As a result, each firm appropriates its rival’s price and sets its price to maximize its profits. When all firms reach equilibrium, they correctly predict the prices of their rivals. An example of a Bertrand oligopoly is Coke and Pepsi in the soft drink industry.

Bertrand’s equilibrium requires only two firms to achieve zero profit and zero marginal cost. Indeed, each company will always be motivated to undercut its rival and there will always be a balance. In today’s economic environment, companies produce identical products that are perfect substitutes, and the capacity of the company is not limited. Below is a graph illustrating a BCM.

In summary, the main difference between Cournot’s competition model and Bertrand’s competition model is the fact that they use quantity and price respectively as strategic variables. The interesting thing is that even though BCM uses price as a strategic variable, the prices of their products in the market are still lower than those of CCM which uses quantity (Darrough, 1993). Although CCM and BCM are different, it is an advantage for companies considering that the two models can be used over two distinct periods (Besanko et al., 2013). Also, unlike CCM, BCM has been heavily criticized for its lack of generality given that the model depends on constant marginal cost theory. CCM is seen to be applied in most businesses, where companies decide ahead of time on the quantity of production. These companies are obligated to sell all products and are adamant to react regardless of the rise or fall of their competitors’ production levels (Besanko et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Considering this discussion, it can be said that regarding perfect competition as a benchmark, the oligopolistic market has certain distinctive characteristics. Thus, different models are used to determine them. In real-world experiments, BCM is often used because competition is price-driven, unlike CCM which is quantity-driven. Furthermore, both BCM and CCM are used in both the short run and the long run respectively. Moreover, although these two models are more important and more common in oligopolistic markets, we also find the Stackelberg.

Reference

1. Besanko, D., Dranove, D., Shanley, M. and Schaefer, S., 2013. Economics of Strategy. John Wiley.

Do You Have to Be Competitive to Succeed: Persuasive Essay

Introduction

In today’s fast-paced and competitive world, success is often associated with being the best, outperforming others, and striving for victory at all costs. The prevailing notion is that a competitive spirit is necessary for success. However, I argue that while competition can be a driving force for achievement, it is not the sole determinant of success. In this persuasive essay, I will present arguments and examples to demonstrate that success can be achieved through collaboration, innovation, and personal growth, without solely relying on a cutthroat competitive mindset.

Collaboration breeds success

Successful individuals and organizations recognize the power of collaboration. By working together, sharing ideas, and pooling resources, people can achieve collective success that surpasses individual accomplishments. Collaboration promotes a supportive and nurturing environment where individuals can leverage each other’s strengths and complement each other’s weaknesses. Examples such as open-source software development, global partnerships, and collective research efforts demonstrate that collaboration leads to groundbreaking innovations and remarkable achievements.

Innovation drives success

While competition can drive incremental improvements, it is often innovation that leads to groundbreaking advancements and transformative success. Instead of focusing on outperforming others, individuals who prioritize innovation seek to create new solutions, challenge existing paradigms, and improve the world around them. Innovators like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Marie Curie have achieved remarkable success by thinking outside the box, taking risks, and pursuing their visions relentlessly. Innovation not only propels personal success but also contributes to societal progress and the betterment of humanity.

Personal growth as a measure of success

Success should not be solely defined by external achievements or the ability to defeat others. True success lies in personal growth, self-improvement, and fulfilling one’s potential. By setting personal goals, continuously learning, and developing valuable skills, individuals can achieve fulfillment and make meaningful contributions to society. Personal growth encompasses various aspects such as emotional intelligence, resilience, adaptability, and creativity, which are crucial for long-term success in an ever-evolving world.

Collaborative competition

It is important to acknowledge that competition can have positive aspects when it is channeled in a collaborative and constructive manner. Healthy competition can foster innovation, inspire individuals to push their limits, and encourage continuous improvement. However, it is essential to strike a balance between healthy competition and destructive rivalry. By promoting collaboration and sportsmanship within a competitive framework, individuals can cultivate a supportive environment where success is not measured solely by defeating others but by personal growth and collective achievements.

Conclusion

While competition can serve as a driving force, it is not the sole determinant of success. Collaborative efforts, innovation, and personal growth play crucial roles in achieving success and making a lasting impact. By embracing collaboration, nurturing innovation, and focusing on personal growth, individuals can succeed not only in their personal endeavors but also in contributing to the betterment of society. Ultimately, success should be measured by the fulfillment and positive impact one achieves, rather than simply outperforming others.

Why Is Competition Necessary for Success Essay

Introduction

Competition is an inherent aspect of human nature, driving individuals and societies to push their limits, innovate, and achieve greatness. In this persuasive essay, we will explore why competition is necessary for success. By fostering personal growth, promoting excellence, and driving innovation, competition acts as a catalyst for achieving one’s goals and reaching new heights of success.

Personal Growth

Competition challenges individuals to step out of their comfort zones and strive for continuous improvement. When we compete, we are forced to confront our weaknesses, identify areas for growth, and develop the skills necessary to excel. It pushes us to set higher standards for ourselves, leading to personal growth and self-discovery. Through competition, we learn valuable lessons about resilience, perseverance, and determination. It teaches us how to embrace failure, learn from setbacks, and come back stronger. The journey towards success, fueled by healthy competition, molds our character, shapes our values, and instills essential life skills that are vital for personal growth and development.

Excellence and Achievement

Competition is a driving force behind excellence and achievement. When individuals and teams compete against each other, they strive to outperform one another, raising the bar for success. The desire to succeed and be recognized for one’s achievements ignites a sense of motivation and dedication. Competition fosters a culture of excellence, where individuals are encouraged to give their best efforts, surpass their limits, and achieve outstanding results. It creates a platform for individuals to showcase their talents, skills, and capabilities, ultimately leading to personal and professional success.

Innovation and Progress

Competition spurs innovation and progress in various fields. When multiple individuals or organizations compete, they are compelled to think creatively, develop new strategies, and find unique solutions to outperform their competitors. The pursuit of success in a competitive environment drives the need for continuous improvement and innovation. It leads to the creation of groundbreaking technologies, advancements in scientific research, and improvements in products and services. Competition fosters an environment that rewards innovation, pushing society forward and driving progress in all aspects of life.

Motivation and Goal Setting

Competition provides individuals with a sense of purpose and motivation. It sets clear goals and benchmarks to strive for, providing a sense of direction and focus. The desire to succeed in a competitive environment motivates individuals to work harder, dedicate their time and energy, and make the necessary sacrifices to achieve their objectives. Competition provides a platform for individuals to challenge themselves, measure their progress, and celebrate their accomplishments. It fuels ambition, determination, and the drive to succeed.

Collaboration and Networking

Contrary to popular belief, competition also fosters collaboration and networking. When individuals or teams compete, they have the opportunity to interact with like-minded individuals, exchange ideas, and learn from each other’s experiences. Healthy competition encourages individuals to build relationships, share knowledge, and collaborate to achieve common goals. These connections and networks built through competition can lead to future collaborations, partnerships, and opportunities for success.

Conclusion

Competition is a necessary ingredient for success. It drives personal growth, promotes excellence, fuels innovation, provides motivation, and encourages collaboration. Embracing competition enables individuals and societies to reach their full potential, achieve remarkable accomplishments, and contribute to the advancement of our world. By recognizing the value of healthy competition, we can harness its power to propel us towards success in all aspects of life. Let us embrace competition as a catalyst for growth, excellence, and the realization of our dreams.