When comparing costs, have you ever found yourself standing in the aisle of a grocery store? Numerous comparable goods exist, albeit at wildly differing price points. That place is familiar to me. I’m not sure what makes one product superior to another, whether it’s bread, spaghetti, or cheese. When faced with a decision, I frequently prefer to purchase the least expensive item available. Well, why not? Of course, there are differences, but I’m not too aware of them.
When I bring groceries home, my wife will frequently chastise me for buying Brand X groceries instead of Brand Y. But what if every decision I made was the same? What if every brand produced precisely the same type of pasta in the same plant at exactly the same flavor? Why wouldn’t I choose the ones that were the cheapest? In this situation, pasta would be a completely competitive market. Allow us to clarify.
In what sense is a market perfectly competitive?
Economics theory essentially limits the concept of a completely competitive market. From an economic perspective, a completely competitive market exhibits all of the following traits, in addition to its items being identical or homogeneous:
- Producers are powerless to alter the supply. Therefore, producers are unable to simply increase their production to lower the market price. They cannot abruptly withdraw from the market, nor can they drastically reduce supply in order to drive up prices.
- Smart sellers and buyers have access to “perfect” information. This indicates that their knowledge of product prices covers the entire market, including not only the current situation but also historical and prospective trends.
- We exchange goods for cash without any fees. This indicates that no middlemen are involved. Also, regardless of their location, buyers are free to move to any supplier.
- Prices can practically never rise above the lowest point in the market when there is complete information and perfectly mobile resources.
It’s evident that actual conditions cannot create the prerequisites for a completely competitive market. One cannot ignore expenses such as shipping fees and middlemen. For this reason, we consider all real markets to be “imperfect.” But sometimes, economists use a completely competitive market to create theoretical models.
This is the complete opposite of a monopolistic market
Modern society often favors competitive markets, sometimes referred to as capitalism. That’s why there are so many rules aimed at preventing a business from controlling prices by forming a monopoly. You’ve probably heard of antitrust laws or instances in which the government refuses to approve a merger. Anti-trust authorities still approve most transactions. If they think a combination will significantly reduce competition, they won’t be afraid to intervene.
Even in situations where money isn’t directly involved, governments will occasionally intervene. Who could forget the lawsuit Microsoft faced from the US government in the early 2000s for monopolistic practices? The US government sued the computer company because they pre-installed Internet Explorer with every Windows installation, while all competing products required individual downloads.
Is perfect competition the Holy Grail of markets?
On the surface, competition is often positive. The end result is better pricing and products. Everyone wants to earn more money, after all. A corporation will make an effort to produce a better product—or the same product, but at a lower cost—if it believes it can. Next, buyers will make their selections using their wallets.
Nevertheless, excessive market rivalry isn’t beneficial to all parties concerned. Yeah, the deals are really great. For customers, that can sound enticing. Many of the secondary effects, however, are not as pleasant. In a market with perfect competition, no producer genuinely makes any money. Because everyone has perfect information, nobody pays more than the absolute minimum.
If one company is profitable, other producers will intervene and reduce the margin until no profit remains for anyone. Moreover, in a market with perfect competition, innovation stagnates. This is a result of the lack of motivation to provide a superior good. In actuality, perfect competition prevents the creation of superior products. After all, having the same product is one of its essential characteristics.
This is the nearest real-world illustration of an optimally competitive market
A perfectly competitive market is really merely a theoretical situation, as we have previously discussed. In the real world, a perfectly competitive market does not exist. That’s because there isn’t actually a market where all producers and consumers have perfect information. Nevertheless, some instances from actual life come close.
Consider the iPhone charging cables available on Amazon.com. When you search for these items, a multitude of options become available. However, their primary function is to charge your iPhone. These days, they essentially function as commodities. Prices mostly determine which are the most well-liked. Nevertheless, companies might try a few different strategies to stand out in the market and increase their revenue. Some have better reviews, to start. This implies that the products are of a different caliber. Secondly, some may be more suitable for certain clients than others due to their distinct connections, lengths, or colors.
However, these variations are not sufficient for a product to survive in a highly competitive market. Allow me to share with you a secret that is unknown to most people. The majority of Americans believe that these cables are already rather affordable, costing only a few dollars each. However, I’ve noticed Hong Kong stores selling the exact identical cables (in the same packaging) for half the price. According to my estimation, China, the country of origin for these cables, sells them for an even lower price. Customers are just not well-informed when it comes to iPhone charging cables.
In summary
Is there a world without innovation? This is the risk associated with a market characterized by perfect competition. There wouldn’t be more energy-efficient lighting options, safer automobiles, quicker computers, or many other things. Businesses wouldn’t be competing in the labor market for talent if profit incentives weren’t present. There will be fewer hires from other companies, ultimately resulting in lower wages for all. Labor rates finally come to a standstill when goods are in a completely competitive market. Perfectly competitive marketplaces, at the very least, result in an extremely dull world.
There are some benefits to the economic idea of a completely competitive market, though. By eliminating variables like high beginning costs or governmental constraints, businesses and economists can use them to theoretically evaluate specific goods or brands. But in the end, these are all idle speculations.
