What do you think?
Rate this book
Competition Overdose: How Free Market Mythology Transformed Us from Citizen Kings to Market Servants
Using dozens of vivid examples to show how society overprescribed competition as a solution and when unbridled rivalry hurts consumers, kills entrepreneurship, and increases economic inequality, two free-market thinkers diagnose the sickness caused by competition overdose and provide remedies that will promote sustainable growth and progress for everyone, not just wealthy shareholders and those at the top.Whatever illness our society suffers, competition is the remedy. Do we want better schools for our children? Cheaper prices for everything? More choices in the marketplace? The answer is Increase competition.
Yet, many of us are unhappy with the results. We think we’re paying less, but we’re getting much less. Our food has undeclared additives (or worse), our drinking water contains toxic chemicals, our hotel bills reveal surprise additions, our kids’ schools are failing, our activities are tracked so that advertisers can target us with relentless promotions. All will be cured, we are told, by increasing the competitive pressure and defanging the bloated regulatory state.
In a captivating exposé, Maurice E. Stucke and Ariel Ezrachi show how we are falling prey to greed, chicanery, and cronyism. Refuting the almost religious belief in rivalry as the vehicle for prosperity, the authors identify the powerful corporations, lobbyists, and lawmakers responsible for pushing this toxic competition—and argue instead for a healthier, even nobler, form of competition.
Competition Overdose diagnoses the disease—and provides a cure for it.
Yet, many of us are unhappy with the results. We think we’re paying less, but we’re getting much less. Our food has undeclared additives (or worse), our drinking water contains toxic chemicals, our hotel bills reveal surprise additions, our kids’ schools are failing, our activities are tracked so that advertisers can target us with relentless promotions. All will be cured, we are told, by increasing the competitive pressure and defanging the bloated regulatory state.
In a captivating exposé, Maurice E. Stucke and Ariel Ezrachi show how we are falling prey to greed, chicanery, and cronyism. Refuting the almost religious belief in rivalry as the vehicle for prosperity, the authors identify the powerful corporations, lobbyists, and lawmakers responsible for pushing this toxic competition—and argue instead for a healthier, even nobler, form of competition.
Competition Overdose diagnoses the disease—and provides a cure for it.
421 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 17, 2020
21 people are currently reading
180 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
November 12, 2020
There are three very good reasons to read this book (two for anyone, one especially for fellow Slovaks):
1. While many people understand that there are problems where competition does not work (monopoly, public goods, externalities), this book reminds us that sometimes there are problems even in places where the competition works perfectly fine. Also, authors use very easy-to-understand examples.
2. To the best of my knowledge, this book contains a best explanation of dangers connected with the new Surveillence Capitalism (as coined by Prof. Zuboff) on a rather small space.
3. The part dedicated to the capitalism mythology might bear heavy resemblance to the discourse popular among economics/business savvy (yet to be) elites of the 2000s in Slovakia. Brings back many memories. Again, illustrated on very good examples - healthcare, forensics, etc.
Critique: For some, the argument that the competition does not always bring the best solution imaginable / feasible might seem trivial. However, it is frightfully well illustrated.
Honorary mention: I am personally glad this book comes from 2 antitrust scholars. Together with their joint work on algorhytmic competition, this book forms a solid pop reading for anyone interested in the field.
1. While many people understand that there are problems where competition does not work (monopoly, public goods, externalities), this book reminds us that sometimes there are problems even in places where the competition works perfectly fine. Also, authors use very easy-to-understand examples.
2. To the best of my knowledge, this book contains a best explanation of dangers connected with the new Surveillence Capitalism (as coined by Prof. Zuboff) on a rather small space.
3. The part dedicated to the capitalism mythology might bear heavy resemblance to the discourse popular among economics/business savvy (yet to be) elites of the 2000s in Slovakia. Brings back many memories. Again, illustrated on very good examples - healthcare, forensics, etc.
Critique: For some, the argument that the competition does not always bring the best solution imaginable / feasible might seem trivial. However, it is frightfully well illustrated.
Honorary mention: I am personally glad this book comes from 2 antitrust scholars. Together with their joint work on algorhytmic competition, this book forms a solid pop reading for anyone interested in the field.
March 17, 2020
A Primitivist preacher who wants to convince the audience that dying of hunger and of diseases brought by fleas (of which you would have many) makes them King-like, and the ability to freely choose between 20 flavors of yogurt makes them a Servant. And who wants to be a Servant? So the logical consequence would be to obey the political overlords, even if it is against their better judgement.
April 8, 2025
While this book may not be an eye-opener for the savvy customer, it still is a worthy read as it provides a wide array of abusive practices by various industries (not only the “usual suspects” such as the retail, hotels, and casinos, but also the “more charitable ones” such as the educational institutions) that underline how competition can become toxic. In addition to its content, the book is also commendable as the criticism on the holy grail of competition comes from unexpected quarters, as it is penned by two free-market economists.
Through colourful examples ranging from horsemeat in our burgers, to letters sent by college admission offices to a dog (!) wooing her to apply to colleges, and display of more “ordinary” tricks and gimmicks (such as drip or partition pricing strategies, complex pricing, limited time offers) that firms use extensively, the authors demonstrate how easily quality is sacrificed, honesty shot down, and morality simply dismissed.
Furthermore, the authors convincingly argue that any attempt to stem the tide of a “race to the bottom” is doomed to failure. In rare cases where firms decide to take the moral high ground and help customers (as attempted by a trio of universities by suppressing early admission process, or by casinos eliminating resort fees in Vegas), the applicants and the customers respectively were unable to appreciate the honesty, misjudged the prices and went with other competitors. Sure enough, within a year, those trying to help the customers returned to the old ways.
But it gets more sinister, argue the authors – and no, they are not being cynical! Take the authors’ example, the private prison system in the U.S. which provides all the incentives for cost cutting (at the expense of degrading the quality of services provided), stuffing up prisons with as many inmates as possible (even if that means bribing judges!) and for as long as possible (even if that means dolling out extensions for “disciplinary misconduct” for things like taking a broom out of the closet at the wrong time!) – all in the name of fattening the “bottom line”. Add to this that the private prisons “market” is largely dominated by only two (!) companies that excel at “cream skimming” (taking on the low-cost “profitable” inmates while offloading “expensive” ones to the state) and one can see how a toxic form of capitalism (here in the form of privatization) can work against the interest of society at large.
In short, powerful companies sing the tune of “free markets” and employ lofty words like “freedom”, “prosperity”, “efficiency” to convince policy makers how markets should be left on its own (with as little regulation as possible), and dangle catchy words like “competition”, “choice” and “autonomy” in pandering to customers, while doing everything they can (lobbying, PR campaigns, financing “studies”) to tilt the system in their favour through unfair, abusive and predatory practices -- like the notorious “drip pricing” where the initially offered price for a hotel room keeps increasing through extra (and mandatory!) add-ons.
The weakest part of the book, however, as any attentive reader may anticipate even before reaching the last chapter by oozing optimism throughout the book, is the conclusion.
The authors, while explicitly denying they do not expect rivals in an economic system to “sing Kum ba yah around the campfire” do… just that with their proposition in attempting to set up a “noble competition” and their appeal to “kenosis”. Naively expecting industry to self-regulate itself, change the corporate culture to promote ethical and fair competition, and establishing a “gentlemen’s rules of competition” where respect and moral values are upheld among competitive companies in a dog-eat-dog setting is yearning for a bygone era where gentlemen’s agreements were valued among competitors whose main concern was to support their social standing with little regard for handsome profits – one wonders, did such an era even exist?
Indeed, once the genie of greed, zero-sum game environment, cut-throat capitalism, and encouragement for attitude to ‘win at all cost’ came out of the bottle and cozied up to the worst that human nature had to offer, there was no way of putting of turning back the clock.
Furthermore, the authors’ recommendations are predictable enough: empowering regulatory agencies by extending their overview, entrusting the state in providing a safety net for those “left behind”. Laudable as they are though, they unfortunately run hollow given not only the current political climate of the gang-ho capitalism under the Trump administration but on a more fundamental level run counter to what most Americans perceive as “un-American” and –god-forbid “socialist” policies.
Still, there is a glimmer of hope, apparently. Sometimes, one can make a difference in the world. A simple question that a regular real estate developer struck with a Google engineer led to a snowball effect that ended up enacting a relatively sturdy privacy law in California. That is more of an exception though – remember that Vegas casino that wanted to eliminate resort fees fell back to toe the “party line” so quickly?
As a side note, I should mention that, oddly enough, the best part of the book was the analogy the authors drew between a couple of psychological (Stanford prison, and Milgram’s voltage) experiments and how people cope with toxic competition in explaining high level of obedience and compliance among subjects/customers. The findings about six situational factors that bring this about are remarkable: presenting basic rules that seem to make sense before they are actually put into practice, and then to use them arbitrarily and impersonally to justify mindless compliance; replacing unpleasant reality with desirable rhetoric; creating an environment to diffuse or abdicate responsibility for negative outcomes; moving in steps that are incremental and barely noticeable; making exit costs high; and offering an ideology (or a big lie) to justify the use of any means to achieve a seemingly desirable goal.
Some quotes:
“Competition can often lead to the most economically efficient outcome. But an economically efficient outcome does not necessarily mean an outcome that is good, fair, or just.”
“Rather than competition serving us, we now serve it, as our laws and economic policies turn us from citizen kings to market servants.”
“Rather than spending money on improving the product or service, competition instead causes money to be spent on the competition itself.”
“The trouble with man is that he is stupid. Phenomenally stupid.” (Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground)
“Without ever crossing the creepy line – Schmidt (Google’s ex-CEO) once remarked that on issues involving ‘invasiveness’ Google’s policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it" – and always preserving our sense of independence and autonomy.”
“There is an important distinction between a society that has a market economy and a society that is defined by its market economy.” (Michael Sander, philosopher)
“In promoting selfishness and materialism, the competition ideology ultimately marginalizes those quality-of-life factors that actually are correlated with greater well-being, like work-life balance, relationships with family, friends, and members of their community, health, a sense of autonomy, and the quality of the environment.” (!!)
Through colourful examples ranging from horsemeat in our burgers, to letters sent by college admission offices to a dog (!) wooing her to apply to colleges, and display of more “ordinary” tricks and gimmicks (such as drip or partition pricing strategies, complex pricing, limited time offers) that firms use extensively, the authors demonstrate how easily quality is sacrificed, honesty shot down, and morality simply dismissed.
Furthermore, the authors convincingly argue that any attempt to stem the tide of a “race to the bottom” is doomed to failure. In rare cases where firms decide to take the moral high ground and help customers (as attempted by a trio of universities by suppressing early admission process, or by casinos eliminating resort fees in Vegas), the applicants and the customers respectively were unable to appreciate the honesty, misjudged the prices and went with other competitors. Sure enough, within a year, those trying to help the customers returned to the old ways.
But it gets more sinister, argue the authors – and no, they are not being cynical! Take the authors’ example, the private prison system in the U.S. which provides all the incentives for cost cutting (at the expense of degrading the quality of services provided), stuffing up prisons with as many inmates as possible (even if that means bribing judges!) and for as long as possible (even if that means dolling out extensions for “disciplinary misconduct” for things like taking a broom out of the closet at the wrong time!) – all in the name of fattening the “bottom line”. Add to this that the private prisons “market” is largely dominated by only two (!) companies that excel at “cream skimming” (taking on the low-cost “profitable” inmates while offloading “expensive” ones to the state) and one can see how a toxic form of capitalism (here in the form of privatization) can work against the interest of society at large.
In short, powerful companies sing the tune of “free markets” and employ lofty words like “freedom”, “prosperity”, “efficiency” to convince policy makers how markets should be left on its own (with as little regulation as possible), and dangle catchy words like “competition”, “choice” and “autonomy” in pandering to customers, while doing everything they can (lobbying, PR campaigns, financing “studies”) to tilt the system in their favour through unfair, abusive and predatory practices -- like the notorious “drip pricing” where the initially offered price for a hotel room keeps increasing through extra (and mandatory!) add-ons.
The weakest part of the book, however, as any attentive reader may anticipate even before reaching the last chapter by oozing optimism throughout the book, is the conclusion.
The authors, while explicitly denying they do not expect rivals in an economic system to “sing Kum ba yah around the campfire” do… just that with their proposition in attempting to set up a “noble competition” and their appeal to “kenosis”. Naively expecting industry to self-regulate itself, change the corporate culture to promote ethical and fair competition, and establishing a “gentlemen’s rules of competition” where respect and moral values are upheld among competitive companies in a dog-eat-dog setting is yearning for a bygone era where gentlemen’s agreements were valued among competitors whose main concern was to support their social standing with little regard for handsome profits – one wonders, did such an era even exist?
Indeed, once the genie of greed, zero-sum game environment, cut-throat capitalism, and encouragement for attitude to ‘win at all cost’ came out of the bottle and cozied up to the worst that human nature had to offer, there was no way of putting of turning back the clock.
Furthermore, the authors’ recommendations are predictable enough: empowering regulatory agencies by extending their overview, entrusting the state in providing a safety net for those “left behind”. Laudable as they are though, they unfortunately run hollow given not only the current political climate of the gang-ho capitalism under the Trump administration but on a more fundamental level run counter to what most Americans perceive as “un-American” and –god-forbid “socialist” policies.
Still, there is a glimmer of hope, apparently. Sometimes, one can make a difference in the world. A simple question that a regular real estate developer struck with a Google engineer led to a snowball effect that ended up enacting a relatively sturdy privacy law in California. That is more of an exception though – remember that Vegas casino that wanted to eliminate resort fees fell back to toe the “party line” so quickly?
As a side note, I should mention that, oddly enough, the best part of the book was the analogy the authors drew between a couple of psychological (Stanford prison, and Milgram’s voltage) experiments and how people cope with toxic competition in explaining high level of obedience and compliance among subjects/customers. The findings about six situational factors that bring this about are remarkable: presenting basic rules that seem to make sense before they are actually put into practice, and then to use them arbitrarily and impersonally to justify mindless compliance; replacing unpleasant reality with desirable rhetoric; creating an environment to diffuse or abdicate responsibility for negative outcomes; moving in steps that are incremental and barely noticeable; making exit costs high; and offering an ideology (or a big lie) to justify the use of any means to achieve a seemingly desirable goal.
Some quotes:
“Competition can often lead to the most economically efficient outcome. But an economically efficient outcome does not necessarily mean an outcome that is good, fair, or just.”
“Rather than competition serving us, we now serve it, as our laws and economic policies turn us from citizen kings to market servants.”
“Rather than spending money on improving the product or service, competition instead causes money to be spent on the competition itself.”
“The trouble with man is that he is stupid. Phenomenally stupid.” (Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground)
“Without ever crossing the creepy line – Schmidt (Google’s ex-CEO) once remarked that on issues involving ‘invasiveness’ Google’s policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it" – and always preserving our sense of independence and autonomy.”
“There is an important distinction between a society that has a market economy and a society that is defined by its market economy.” (Michael Sander, philosopher)
“In promoting selfishness and materialism, the competition ideology ultimately marginalizes those quality-of-life factors that actually are correlated with greater well-being, like work-life balance, relationships with family, friends, and members of their community, health, a sense of autonomy, and the quality of the environment.” (!!)
September 29, 2024
I’m really glad this book exists, especially since there are far fewer readable books on microeconomic topics compared to macroeconomics. Even more rare are those that focus on antitrust and competition. I enjoyed reading it because it touches on many questions that resonate with me professionally.
However, there’s a big BUT...
While I have no doubt the authors have a solid background in economics, despite being lawyers, I found almost all the case studies to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Let me explain why.
The book discusses what the authors call the "overdose of competition." Their main argument is that too much competition can sometimes lead to inefficient or socially undesirable outcomes. They aren’t advocating for communism or socialism; rather, they’re highlighting the idea that competition, when excessive, can create negative effects.
But here’s the thing: this isn’t a new idea. What they describe as “competition overdose” is essentially just another term for market failure, something we’ve been familiar with in economics since the early days of the discipline.
Take, for instance, the case study on "too much competition" between U.S. universities. Higher education, being a public good, is a classic example of a market prone to failure.
Or consider the horsemeat scandal and drip pricing in Las Vegas—both of these examples can be easily categorized as market failures due to information asymmetry.
Then there’s the issue of hockey helmets, which is simply a coordination problem.
My main criticism isn’t that the authors point out something that many would consider obvious, but rather where they try to trace the roots of the problem and propose their solution.
The core argument of the book is that too much competition is the cause of the issues they discuss. However, an easy counterargument is that it might not be excess competition but rather excessive regulation that has distorted markets and led to inefficiencies. That said, I agree that, since many of these are examples of failed markets, regulation is indeed necessary. It's regulation, not "the right kind of competition" as the authors suggest, that can help guide us from one equilibrium to another.
In my view, there isn't a "right" or "wrong" type of competition. Competition is like fire or water—an element we can harness for good, but one that needs to be understood and, when necessary, regulated. Just as wildfires and floods are harmful without control, unchecked competition (specialy in failed markets) serves the interests of competitors rather than the public.
As you can see, even though I don’t fully agree with the authors, they provide a solid foundation for discussion, which is why I’m giving the book 4 out of 5. It’s well-written, and the authors include plenty of interesting details in their case studies. I highly recommend this book and would be happy to discuss it with anyone interested in the topic.
However, there’s a big BUT...
While I have no doubt the authors have a solid background in economics, despite being lawyers, I found almost all the case studies to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Let me explain why.
The book discusses what the authors call the "overdose of competition." Their main argument is that too much competition can sometimes lead to inefficient or socially undesirable outcomes. They aren’t advocating for communism or socialism; rather, they’re highlighting the idea that competition, when excessive, can create negative effects.
But here’s the thing: this isn’t a new idea. What they describe as “competition overdose” is essentially just another term for market failure, something we’ve been familiar with in economics since the early days of the discipline.
Take, for instance, the case study on "too much competition" between U.S. universities. Higher education, being a public good, is a classic example of a market prone to failure.
Or consider the horsemeat scandal and drip pricing in Las Vegas—both of these examples can be easily categorized as market failures due to information asymmetry.
Then there’s the issue of hockey helmets, which is simply a coordination problem.
My main criticism isn’t that the authors point out something that many would consider obvious, but rather where they try to trace the roots of the problem and propose their solution.
The core argument of the book is that too much competition is the cause of the issues they discuss. However, an easy counterargument is that it might not be excess competition but rather excessive regulation that has distorted markets and led to inefficiencies. That said, I agree that, since many of these are examples of failed markets, regulation is indeed necessary. It's regulation, not "the right kind of competition" as the authors suggest, that can help guide us from one equilibrium to another.
In my view, there isn't a "right" or "wrong" type of competition. Competition is like fire or water—an element we can harness for good, but one that needs to be understood and, when necessary, regulated. Just as wildfires and floods are harmful without control, unchecked competition (specialy in failed markets) serves the interests of competitors rather than the public.
As you can see, even though I don’t fully agree with the authors, they provide a solid foundation for discussion, which is why I’m giving the book 4 out of 5. It’s well-written, and the authors include plenty of interesting details in their case studies. I highly recommend this book and would be happy to discuss it with anyone interested in the topic.
November 16, 2025
[Competition Overdose: How Free Market Mythology Transformed Us from Citizen Kings to Market Servants - Maurice E. Stucke, Ariel Ezrachi]
Rating: 5.00/5.00
"The escalation of this book being a recommended read by my work supervisor to me loving this book from the front to the back is unexpected. As an economics enthusiast and market research analyst, I began this book with an open mind. And by the time I reached the last page, I was undoubtedly mind-blown by how eloquent and insightful it was. The authors did an exceptional job in compiling and elaborating on their wisdom and perspectives on competition in the past and current market states.
Overall, I highly recommend this book to all readers who are intrigued by the topic of market competition. Lastly, kudos to my best friend for helping me find a PDF copy of this nonfiction masterpiece, as the book is not available in Cambodia yet."
#CompetitionOverdose #MauriceEStucke #ArielEzrachi #Nonfiction #Business
Rating: 5.00/5.00
"The escalation of this book being a recommended read by my work supervisor to me loving this book from the front to the back is unexpected. As an economics enthusiast and market research analyst, I began this book with an open mind. And by the time I reached the last page, I was undoubtedly mind-blown by how eloquent and insightful it was. The authors did an exceptional job in compiling and elaborating on their wisdom and perspectives on competition in the past and current market states.
Overall, I highly recommend this book to all readers who are intrigued by the topic of market competition. Lastly, kudos to my best friend for helping me find a PDF copy of this nonfiction masterpiece, as the book is not available in Cambodia yet."
#CompetitionOverdose #MauriceEStucke #ArielEzrachi #Nonfiction #Business
January 8, 2021
In capitalist America, we're sold on the belief that the free market and competition is the best way to run a country. In this book, Stucke and Ezrachi show how that's the case, and they kick the book off with an epic analogy about how hockey players neglected to wear helmets for many years. Healthy competition is good, but as the authors explain in this book, we can overdose on competition that causes companies to cut corners. The drive for competition and maximizing profits has led to people dying and lowering our quality of life overall. Fortunately, the authors have some recommendations for fixing the problems.
November 5, 2022
Great discussion of situations where more competition may result in lower results for consumers and competitive process and that regulation may be a solution in such cases. Interesting read in times when many competition policy conferences focus on the failures of antitrust enforcement. Stucke and Ezrachi suggest a direction towards noble competition, sounding a bit like a return to the age of chivalry - a time when men were courageous and courteous, ladies were fair and respected and difficult situations were depicted to be resolved in respecting the rights of the weaker. This all sounded very interesting and convincing but do our societies have a mandate for this?
October 4, 2023
It is amazing how it is so easy to camouflage any unethical business strategy by harping on technological advancement, convenience, awareness, control over the market by consumers, and the list goes on. Information asymmetry guided by lack of awareness on the part of users facilitate building a legitimate case where even digital surveillance is justified. This work by these eminent scholars makes the reader uncomfortable but does greater good when the reader makes the smallest effort to identify the undertones of business strategies of platform markets. A fantastic read and one which is even friendly for people not belonging to the discipline of either law or economics.
April 22, 2020
A nice dive into how the deck is stacked in the name of "competition". Quite a few funny revelations of broken systems that perpetuate themselves and directly effect our lives.
February 5, 2024
Really thought provoking. Kindness and care for your competitors and rise all boats.
June 5, 2020
If I had to choose between being alive today, or at any previous time in history, I would choose today. Thanks to the technological developments of the last centuries, today is a fantastic time to be alive. Would these developments have been possible without free market competition? Probably not. Competition is a great tool that has served us well. But, like any tool, it can end up doing more harm than good if we disregard its safety instructions. This book reminds us about these safety instructions in an accessible manner with detailed examples and thoughtful conclusions.
My full review of Competition Overdose is available here.
My full review of Competition Overdose is available here.
September 3, 2020
This book is really more about the need for regulating competitive markets than about "free market mythology." The authors use some really good examples of how overheated competition harms everyday Americans, from college applicants to Las Vegas tourists. It seems like some of these market failures were the result of firms coordinating to harm consumers, so I was skeptical of their proposal that firms could self-regulate to the consumer's benefit.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews