I'm not claiming all is discovered. We've reached the end of history. That's foolish. But for a fair amount of the economy competition/innovation is simply not possible.
Convincing a generation that liquid soap is better than a simple bar, despite being vastly more wasteful in both product and packaging. Same for laundry in working to replace a cardboard box full of powder with all sorts of tablets, sachets and gels in plastic boxes. Or new recipes that replace original ingredients with super cheap palm oil or HFCS - sold for the same price. It's endless, and brands have burnt 95% of their former goodwill by being too damn clever for their own good.
Unless consumers are, in aggregate, entirely idiotic, buying up dozens of small brands won't pay off as they hope. We've had decades of large companies buying up brand and niche leaders and completely ruining the product in just a year or two. Leaves them cynically trading on the name only and damn near profiteering. Surely people are wising up to this finally? Success of discounters like Aldi and Lidl against major brands says they are.
Right. But the products themselves are essentially the same. And as mentioned, there can be competitive pricing, but that has its limits.
So back to my originsl question: What percentage of the economy can be fully and truly competitive? Or, have we, for a fair amount of the economy "maxed out"?
You need to give us your definition of competitive. The grand parent already answered the examples you provided. The competing products being "essentially the same" does not detract from their competitiveness.
Washing machines, thanks to chasing low water and temperatures, have got markedly worse on the other hand. Nowadays overfilling a machine, even slightly, results in the wash deteriorating - machines didn't used to care in the slightest about that. Keep packing stuff in while it still fits and get perfect results. I have to wonder how many extra "eco" loads are run in order to wash the same household's weekly wash with a modern machine compared to an older, "wasteful" one. I wonder if per lb of washing if it is actually more wasteful. It lasts perhaps 10%-20% of the life of a machine made in the 70s or 80s. How does that impact per wash?
We've had a lot of fake brands and competition just to move balance in the markets from 50:50 to 51:49. More complexity, higher pricing, less competition and less for the consumer. Billions advertising these fake innovations to achieve, well, nothing but a hair's movement in favour of P&G or not. Back handed arrangements in the way supermarkets sell premium shelf spots, end of aisle displays and supplier priority again takes away from real competition and just leaves the appearance of it.
The simple soap, from the decades old small maker, becomes harder and harder to find despite working just as well, being popular, and generating perhaps 1% of the waste of a year's bottles of shower or hand gels. Eventually it disappears because of Tesco/Walmart and P&G/Unilver shelf selling arrangements not because it was wasn't selling, crap or superseded.
Car manufacture still has dozens (just) of manufacturers. There is still real competition and differentiation, despite no end of emissions and safety legislation.
Most categories today are like detergents, selling us fake innovation, differentiation and disruption and forcing us to more profitable but profligate and wasteful ways, not like cars where there actually still some real choices. Even down to the commodities like vegetables - we're sold a 1kg bag, rather than loose buying just the few we might need for a week, there's infinitely fewer varieties but so many more (fake) options. We're all markedly worse off as a result.
And yes. Tesla. But again, what % of the economy is that? I'm not saying there isn't change and innovation here and there. There is. But on the whole what percentage of the economy can be fully and truly competitive?
What's your point? "Remove all innovations and nothing has changed for the better" is just tautological.
I just watched a documentary on Henry Ford - in his time making cars was a “solved” problem - you’d have various highly trained and talented teams of craftsmen that would build a car using simple but versatile tools. It all worked rather well in europe and america, and is a model that has been around throughout most of human history - a “proven and reliable way” to do things.
And here comes Ford and invents mass production as we know it by applying principles already present in the military to the civilian sector. Not precisely new but applied and perfected in a different area. Changed the world.
Today I can see similar changes - people from the software world disrupting traditional industries by applying new methods learned in a different field. Sure a lot of the time they fail spectacularly and get the “I told you so” treatment, but there are some notable winners. Look at what Elon is doing for example.
So I’m rather hopeful to be honest - there is so much stress, unhappiness and efficiency problems present in the world, that I really doubt we’ll run out of things to do anytime soon.
What percentage of the economy can be truly competitive? And how much is closer to commodities wrapped in some semi-fancy marketing?
How many investors / VCs are willing to solve the problem of (say): How to make a better kitchen chair? And improve the manufacturing there of?
That said, my original question is:
But how much of the economy can be truly competitive?
No one knows what percent of the economy can be truly competitive, but it's probably something like half. I'm hard pressed to find a single area of the economy that doesn't have competitive private entities.
They "compete" but they are hardly competitive.
The current narratives for autos is self driving cars and more walkable/bikable urban design. For laundry detergent there's probably textile innovation that makes them require less/no washing. Etc.
What parts of the economy do you think can't innovate?
I guess it just seems to me that a lot of the "innovation" is really just sacrificing quality in the name of price.
But if I look through my outdoor gear and clothing, there have been huge strides in just the past few decades. Not all of the new stuff is great. And some definitely trades durability for light weight (or cost). But overall, what I can buy today is pretty great compared to what I had in Boy Scouts even if some of the older clothing fabrics (like boiled wool as you say) still work quite well.
You can always go pay for higher end clothing. Nothing stops you expect... price. Lol
I think my frustration is that I've found that the price to get clothing made out of higher end/traditional materials is often much dramatically higher than even the difference in material costs account for. For example, I would not only have to pay for the more expensive materials, I would also have to pay to get the clothing custom made. Even finding the materials can be difficult since textile manufacturers often call cheaper alternatives by the same name (e.g. "linen" that isn't made out of flax or "wool" that is really a wool blend).
Telsa would beg to differ. They popularized the idea that an electric vehicle was even possible, and now you can but not only a Tesla, but other EVs like the Hyundai Kona.
Then you've got things like self-driving, which automakers are scrambling to be the first to crack.
Or consider the various safety features. My car will yell at me if I get too close to the vehicle in front of me, or if I try to back out of a parking spot and the radar detects someone coming my way, or if what my hands are doing to the steering wheel makes the computer think I'm starting to doze off. All of these are relatively recent innovations.