The Value of Competition

As has been previously discussed, while Smith and more recent Capitalists each hold Competition in high esteem, their reasons for doing so are not the same.  For the former, the value of Competition is as offering variety as a corrective to Monopoly.  For the latter, Competition spurs an increase in the quality of a product.  However, each also seems to over-value it.  For Smith, the relation of Competition to Monopoly is analogous to that of Democracy to Monarchy, but just as there have been Presidents who are inferior to some Kings, Competition is no guarantee of a superior product to that of a Monopoly.  Nor does it seem easy for a contemporary Capitalist to argue that there is a one-to-one correspondence of Quality to commercial success, the Highest Good of their Free Market.  Furthermore, there is a notable exemption from Competition that all Capitalists seem to respect--when a patent is involved, e. g. for a product or for a manufacturing process.  For, when a producer has such a patent, the market is exclusively theirs, and how beneficial that status is to Demand might depend entirely on the degree of benevolence of the producer, a characteristic not promoted by Capitalism.  So, Competition is not quite the unconditional Good that Capitalists, of one sort or the other, often seem to take it to be.