Are you writing an essay and want us to help with it? lol
That's what I thought. Generally speaking, go with those from tenete and Madej.
Competing enterprises try to offer the best products at the lowest prices they can in order to stay open in the face of their competitors. When market competition is no longer at issue, i.e. when monopolies form or governments take control of an industry, then that industry no longer possesses a driving force to fuel their innovation. They become stagnant and lazy, since people have no choice but to buy from them. This also translates into better employment standards: companies have a vested interest in working conditions and wages more suitable than some competing enterprise who offers work within the same demographic. If we look back into the Soviet era in Russia, we see that workers were but slaves to their government and that the lack of consumer selection resulted in a bland, single variety of products that fell prey to scarcity. In a capitalist economy, the consumer is given options; variety. <br />
And so the end result is a mutually beneficial relationship between the producer and the consumer: a customer gets what they want, the seller makes a profit. In either a mercantilist or socialist economy, where competition is rigged or non-existent, the producer takes precedence over the consumer - who gets the short-end of the stick, always. Market competition in a free economy is the functional embodiment of a win-win philosophy.
The secret to successfully competing in a market economy is outsourcing. GM is successful not only because of the bail out but because they have so many laborers and manufactures in China produce the parts that they need.
It benefits the few while they step on and rob the many!
Dude, it's called Google.
Look at what has happened since the corporations took over.