The following is excerpted from "Free Competition Is Voluntary Cooperation"
Published by American Institute for Economic Research - June 2003
|
If now we enlarge our viewpoint, so that instead of
considering only a few individuals, we regard the social
group in its entirety, free competition is seen to be
that situation in which men are voluntarily cooperating.
All of the group, by purchasing what they prefer, encourage
those best qualified to provide the desired economic
things including services. Each of the group who
is offering things in the markets voluntarily seeks to
cooperate by performing in that economic role where
he can most effectively serve his fellows and thereby
maximize his own reward in the marketplace.
| |
| |
|
In practical effect, under perfectly free competition, producers
cooperate with consumers by endeavoring to provide
the best of whatever is desired at the least cost. Thus
"competition" and "cooperation" become, under such
conditions, merely different labels for the same highly
efficient economic behavior.
Also important in this connection is the fact that the
economic behavior we label "free competition" or
"voluntary cooperation" results in the greatest possible total
of benefits for all who participate.
| |
|
The following is excerpted from "The (Argi)Cultural Contradictions of Obesity"
by Michael Pollan - The New York Times Magazine - October 12, 2003
|
The rules of classical economics just don't seem to operate very
well on the farm. When prices fall, for example, it would make sense
for farmers to cut back on production, shrinking the supply of food
to drive up its price. But in reality, farmers do precisely the opposite,
planting and harvesting more food to keep their total income from
falling, a practice that of course depresses prices even further. What's
rational for the individual farmer is disastrous for farmers as a group.
Add to this logic the constant stream of improvements in agricultural
technology (mechanization, hybrid seed, agrochemicals and now
genetically modified crops -- innovations all eagerly seized on by
farmers hoping to stay one step ahead of falling prices by boosting
yield), and you have a sure-fire recipe for overproduction -- another
word for way too much food.
| |
| |
|
All this would be bag enough if the government weren't doing its
best to make matters even worse, by recklessly encouraging farmers
to produce even more unneeded food. Absurdly, while one hand of
the federal government is campaigning against the epidemic of
obesity, the other hand is actually subsidizing it, by writing farmers
a check for every bushel of corn they can grow. We have been
hearing a lot lately about how our agricultural policy is undermining our
foreign-policy goals, forcing third-world farmers to compete
against a flood tide of cheap American grain. Well, those same
policies are also undermining our public health goals by loosing a tide
of cheap calories at home.
| |
|
The following is excerpted from "Back on the Chain Gang"
by Daniel Lyons - Forbes - October 13, 2003
|
Palmisano has made Moffat the supply-chain czar, ruling Integrated Supply Chain (ISC), IBM's fourth-largest division, with 19,000 employees and a $40 billion purchasing budget.
The future, as Moffat sees it, won't be so much a battle among companies as one among supply chains.
| |
| |
|
If you are not part of this world, you need to know something about the lingo. The "chain" in question stretches all the way from the raw materials at one end of a manufacturing operation to the customer's inventory at the other. In its broadest sense, it includes distribution and logistics; in its grandest aspirations, it contemplates having a customer's order trigger an instantaneous response in every ingredient.
| |
|
|
|