Competition, made up of two Latin words, cum and petere, means to seek together. What every businessman seeks is profit; he seeks it together with his competitors in the paradoxical relationship we call competition.
Yes. But, business isn't the true application of competition, is it? Competition can be like two sprinters trying to be the fastest runner. They can push each other to be their individual best, not to beat the other, but to be that best.
Business for profit is about beating the other, not about being the best.
Then, within a very few years, the Americans became the great innovators.
Do you believe this to be true? I do not.
And, I will add that all of your examples, are from periods of time prior to mass media and the internet. There is far more homogenization of thought now, which is what I am actually talking about in the article piece. This homogenization changes the normal distribution of people playing in the creative fields, narrowing the pool of the next iteration of innovators, and the range their innovations will take.
Our views of the world are at odds with each other, they certainly diverge because your experience and mine are totally different. I have gone from a third world culture to a first world culture. My personal experience has been nourished by North American currents and certain European countries, this year I hope to visit the colossus of Asia “China”.
I maintain that America is the GREAT innovator and China, for example, is the great IMITATOR, but I recognise that within that imitation is the personal touch of its A, B, C and junk qualities, heh, heh, heh.
I do not share the idea that world thinking has become homogenised or globalised. Furthermore, I am particularly inclined to say that this is a trick that certain interests have wanted to implant in people's brains. The past to which you refer has led us to the present we live in. The internet is only an intangible medium, the reality is more palpable and crude. Passivity is sickening and impoverishing the human being.