Competition by Itself Is Out of Balance

The odds against human beings existing in the universe are astronomically large. An unbelievable number of factors had to remain in balance in order for humans to have evolved. The planet had to be in exactly the right position around the exact right size star. The right chemicals had to come together in the exact right amounts, at the exact right temperature to start the process of life.

The point is that there is a very narrow zone of equilibrium where all of the necessary forces and chemicals and sources of energy are balanced. Balance and equilibrium are key to the development of life and the continuance of ecological systems. Humans have evolved not just by outcompeting other species, but by cooperating with each other. Competition and cooperation need to be balanced.

This analogy also holds true for societies and politics. Currently, the Republicans represent a value system cannot produce the equilibrium required for societal stability and growth. They, along with free-market libertarians, believe that competition is sufficient; that each individual selfishly pursuing his or her own self-interest will produce a balanced and fair society. They seem to believe that wealth is synonymous with merit and that those who do not have a job or enough money to feed themselves, educate their children or pay for healthcare have only themselves to blame.

This sort of belief system is based a model of reality that acknowledges competition but doesn’t acknowledge the need for us all to cooperate. Therefore cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and programs that aid the poor is just because the cost of these losers is being borne by the meritorious winners. Why should they share? They work hard, they deserve. The poor do not.

That is why government should be small. Those that drive the economy don’t need the government. Just let these hard workers compete and let the winners win. The winners will employ others to help them. This is how society works—how the winners produce value for everyone. We need to compete to keep the wealthy corporations happy—giving them incentives to hire people in this state or that state. This is the expressed belief system of conservatives and it’s out of balance. Competition is all that is required.

But it is clear that competition by itself does not produce good results for society. It has led to very few very big winners and huge multitudes of losers. That is what the facts on the ground prove.

In this election we have one candidate who believes that the winners need more incentives to win and that the benefits the non-winners currently receive are a drag on the economy. We can’t afford cooperation and compassion. Cutting benefits for the non-winners will balance the budget and a balanced budget will free up capital up so winners will be able to compete even more successfully. This has not and will not work because it is profoundly out of balance. It will only create more wealth disparity. Romney must be defeated.

I suggest this simple slogan for Obama. Romney is only for the rich. I’m for everybody.

One comment

  1. Victor Davis says:

    Andy,

    I hope you are well. You are, however slightly, more diligent in updating this blog than I am in keeping in touch with friends.

    Since this post, events have transpired that cause me to alternately despair and rejoice at being human. On two notable occasions this month, some among us have murdered and maimed innocent people; shot them to death with weapons we have been unwilling to license and for reasons passing understanding. Others have discovered the Higgs boson and landed a robotic laboratory on Mars. The worst and the best of us. Clearly, we’re a mixed bag.

    Hang in there,
    Victor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.