Seems like that author started with “competition is evil and responsible for all bad things” as the bottom line, and then just took examples of random problems and tried to fit them to this pattern. As opposed to… exploring things as they are, and then coming to a conclusion.
babies will compete for their mother’s attention if she is on the telephone or even just looking away
She uses a wide definition of “competition”, probably a synonym of “scarcity”. Scarcity is bad, therefore competition is bad, therefore capitalism is bad. In socialism, babies will not have to compete for their mother’s attention with a telephone!
I am sarcastic here, but what other purpose does it serve to include the babies in an article supposedly about problems of education, financial crisis, drug research, etc.? If you look into technical details of educational system, technical details of the housing markets, technical details of the pharmaceutical research… I would be surprised if at the end you would find out that all three situations are isomorphic. (And I would be even more surprised if you would find out that the problem is also isomorphic to the babies jealous of the phone.)
This of course leads me to the conclusion that the author does not really care about the technical details of education / housing markets / drug research, and only uses these widely accepted problems as “boo lights” to associate with “competition”.
The whole linked interview is just an extended rant on how competition is a horrible evil that corrupts and misfigures everything it touches while cooperation is the way of the angels that leads straight to salvation. I could detect no attempts to think, this is pure attack mode.
Would you care to be more specific?
Seems like that author started with “competition is evil and responsible for all bad things” as the bottom line, and then just took examples of random problems and tried to fit them to this pattern. As opposed to… exploring things as they are, and then coming to a conclusion.
She uses a wide definition of “competition”, probably a synonym of “scarcity”. Scarcity is bad, therefore competition is bad, therefore capitalism is bad. In socialism, babies will not have to compete for their mother’s attention with a telephone!
I am sarcastic here, but what other purpose does it serve to include the babies in an article supposedly about problems of education, financial crisis, drug research, etc.? If you look into technical details of educational system, technical details of the housing markets, technical details of the pharmaceutical research… I would be surprised if at the end you would find out that all three situations are isomorphic. (And I would be even more surprised if you would find out that the problem is also isomorphic to the babies jealous of the phone.)
This of course leads me to the conclusion that the author does not really care about the technical details of education / housing markets / drug research, and only uses these widely accepted problems as “boo lights” to associate with “competition”.
The whole linked interview is just an extended rant on how competition is a horrible evil that corrupts and misfigures everything it touches while cooperation is the way of the angels that leads straight to salvation. I could detect no attempts to think, this is pure attack mode.
Not sure about Lumifer, but I moused over the link, “competition fetish produces human sheep”, and elected not to click.