IS COMPETITION ALWAYS WRONG?

Competition seems to inevitably lead to winners and losers and this runs the risk of separating people. On the otherhand, competition is often considered to be healthy. So is competition healthy or not?  Or is it sometimes healthy? What might healthy competition be. It has been decribed as being healthy when the goal is not actually winning or losing but sharing a learning experience? I have often seen opposing teams after the game is over actually hugging each other, showing genuine affection. So can we compete against friends [or other humans] and honor the friendship [common connection]. So, what is competition? Is it either two individuals or two groups trying to win or be successful in an event with one individual or group winning and the other losing. Does competition always involve winnng and losing or can it be for some kind of recognition that can be shared among a number of people [a learning experience?]. Competition is considered good for free market economies as it is considered to lead to better products, lower prices and more innovation to develop new products. Unfortunately there are few actual free market economies as other factors skew the competition in favor of one or a few companies. This is especially the case with the opportunity to manipulate potential customers using false information via social media. 

My concern about competition is that so often it seems to separate people as winning is considered everything and losing nothing or at least so much inferior to winning. It reminds me of zero sum thinking as it competition seems to be experienced as "the winner takes it all."

What do you think?

ZERO SUM OR NON ZERO SUM

Zero sum refers to any exchange where whatever is gained by someone is lost by another person. An example would be where two people or two groups of people [like in a company] are both competing for something where if one person or group gets that something the other person or group will get less. Zero sum refers to the fact that when you have a limited amount of something that two or more want, how much each individual changes but the total never does and there is always no [zero] change in the overall amount that does not change. So the possibility of a win, win situation does not exist if the total amount is fixed or the value of the something is fixed. Thus, a way where both benefit is not possible. It seems to me that any kind of competition is always zero sum, so that whenever you have winners and losers you are dealing with zero sum. Win-lose outcomes are common and result in one side gaining and the other losing. This can lead to some benefit in the short run but significant losses in the long run. It is the problem of competition [zero sum] vs cooperation [non zero sum or win-win].

Well, what then is not zero sum? It requires that both persons, parties, groups, entities benefit from the exchange or interaction. How does this happen? It can be called a "win-win" outcome where both sides benefit. Examples of this include: all human relationships have the potential to be win-win [right?!]; selling and buying interactions where it is by choice and the seller benefits by the sale and the buyer by what is purchased; and where there is a direct benefit and an indirect benefit such as an employer relaxing work schedules to allow more choice by employees and this increases employee satisfaction and morale and productivity that then benefits the employer.

I mentoned above that human relationships can be win-win and ideally are. Actualy, I believe that human relationships are win-win or they are not human relationships. But, what would they be called if not human? Maybe it is the relationship aspect that requires that it be win-win? Aren't human relationships supposed to be mutually beneficial?

What do you think?