issue37 关于竞争作用的题目, 欢迎大家排砖！

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 37. In most societies, competition generally has more of a negative than a positive effect.
在大多数社会，通常情况下竞争总是起到消极的作用，而不是积极的作用。

I fundamentally disagree with this assertion that competition plays more of a negative than a positive role in most societies. When argument like this is made, the speaker seriously ignores that it is only through competition, far more than non-competition, that some paramount social goals to ensure permanent stability and prosperity of any society can be achieved

For one thing, competition can provide social members with more choices, which incontestably lead to the improvement of their well being. Competition for more customers, for example, has urged enterprises to produce more distinct commodities to attract those with different personalities. As a result, people’s individual needs can be well satisfied. Know this every Chinese people who has undergone the era of the planned economy, where only a few factories are entitled to manufacture the similar types of products as a result of that almost all commodities looked the same. For the same reason, competition between politicians ensures the rights of citizenships to elect out a credible leader who can satisfy with their requirements and interests. Without it, they have to endure the cruel rule of dictators.

Secondly, competition plays a critical role in allocating limited resources efficiently. Under the fierce competition, any participant must do his/her utmost to produce as more as possible at the least cost. And those who fail to do this will be relentlessly eliminated from the market; only the successors have the right to continue on their business. By this mechanism, the use of resources is most efficient. Any skeptic can believe it if only he/she considers the fact that the former Soviet Union and china before implementing the market economy cost almost three times of resources as many as did the western countries to produce the same ton of steel. The reason behind it is simple: without the pressure of competition, factories in planned-economy countries have no impetus to save resources and what they concerned was only to accomplish the assigned plans about outputs. Obviously, this effect of competition is very crucial to ensuring the sustained development of modern society. Even for country like the Soviet Union with such ample resources, it couldn’t afford such a wasteful producing system for long, not to mention those having scarce resources.

In addition, although competition always applauds those successors and more or less disdains the losers, on the whole it conduces to social equity, or at least it can ensure an equal start. In those countries with little competition, governments certainly have a powerful influence in almost all aspects of the society. Officers often determine not only who have the right to produce or sell, but also who are accessible to preferential loans. In the condition of shortage of commodities, they even determine who have the right to purchase. On this occasion, only those who have accesses to governmental officials have the chance to make a success and most common people are actually deprived of any opportunity. Many people thrive on their intimate relationship to officials, but at the same time, most people fall into the state of poverty. We call this phenomenon as nepotism, which is popular in many third-world countries and partly exists in some developed countries, such as Japan or Korean. There is no escaping the fact that almost all these countries are suffering from nepotism ever since the East Asian financial crisis. For them, the only way to exterminate it is to encourage competition.
   
In conclusion, without competition, our society will soon lose its impetus of development; wasting resources and nepotism intertwined together will inevitably lead to the collapse of this society. This is what happened and is happening in the former Soviet Union and many backward countries today.  (613 words)

imongUID: 140258

Issue 37. In most societies, competition generally has more of a negative than a positive effect.
在大多数社会，通常情况下竞争总是起到消极的作用，而不是积极的作用。

I fundamentally disagree with this assertion that competition plays more of a negative than a positive role in most societies. When (a) argument like this is made, the speaker seriously (就是用unfortunately也不能用seriously，是不是照着中文来了，翻译要对应词的内在意思，而不是字面解释)ignores that it is only through competition, far more than non-competition, that some paramount social goals to ensure permanent stability and prosperity of any society can be achieved （严重的头重脚轻，it is … can we achieve some paramount social goals that…）

For one thing, competition can provide social members with more choices, which incontestably lead to the improvement of their well being. Competition for more customers, for example, has urged enterprises to produce more distinct commodities to attract those with different personalities（没错，但是读着不太爽）. As a result, people’s individual needs can be well satisfied. Know this （不是吧，你是要倒装吗）every Chinese people who has undergone the era of the planned economy, where only a few factories are entitled to manufacture the similar types of products as a result of that almost all commodities looked the same（表达不清楚）. For the same reason, competition(s) between politicians ensures (ensure) the rights of citizenships to elect out (out?) a credible leader who can satisfy with their requirements and interests. Without it, they have to endure the cruel rule of dictators.

Secondly, competition plays a critical role in allocating limited resources efficiently. Under the fierce competition, any participant must do his/her utmost to produce as more as possible at the least cost. And those who fail to do this will be relentlessly eliminated（好） from the market; only the successors(错啦，自己查字典去，该打屁股) have the right to continue on their business（整个句子perfect,毁在一个词上）. By this mechanism, the use of resources is most efficient（换一个生动一点的verb?）. Any skeptic can believe it if only he/she considers the fact that the former Soviet Union and china before implementing the market economy cost almost three times of resources as many as did the western countries to produce the same ton of steel(调整顺序，before放到后面,skeptic后面不要用can，换词或者重组句子). The reason behind it is simple: without the pressure of competition, factories in planned-economy countries have no impetus to save resources and what they concerned was only to （their only concern was to，一个tip, 适当减少clause,用词汇的含义表达）accomplish the assigned plans about outputs. Obviously, this effect of competition is very crucial to （crucial in sustaining?）ensuring the sustained development of modern society. Even for country like the Soviet Union with such (?) ample (sufficient?) resources(Even for countries with sufficient resources as Soviet Union), it couldn’t (could neither) afford such a wasteful producing system for long, not to mention those having scarce resources.

In addition, although competition always applauds those successors(改) and more or less disdains the losers, on the whole it conduces to social equity, or at least it can ensure an equal start. In those countries with little competition, governments certainly have a powerful influence in almost all aspects of the society. Officers often determine not only who have the right to produce or sell, but also who are accessible to preferential loans. In the condition of shortage of commodities（at times when shortage of commodities occur）, they even determine who have the right to purchase(不一定总要用逗号，前面7个词后面8个字步入一个通顺的15字中句). On this occasion, only those who have access（es） to government（al） officials have the chance to （make a） success and most common people are actually deprived of any opportunity(access to official? 我觉得是access to 东西). Many people thrive on their intimate relationship to officials, but at the same time, most people fall into the state of poverty. We call this phenomenon as nepotism, which is popular in many third-world countries and partly exists in some developed countries, such as Japan or Korean. There is no escaping the fact that almost all these countries are suffering from nepotism ever since the East Asian financial crisis. For them, the only way to exterminate it is to encourage competition. （我觉得，都shortage了还success？是不是在说清楚一些，感觉不太relevant，问题倒不一定处在论点上）

In conclusion, without competition, our society will soon lose its impetus of development; wasting resources and nepotism intertwined together will inevitably lead to the collapse of this society. This is what happened and is happening in the former Soviet Union and many backward countries today. (613 words)
写得太着急了，句子质量不太高
不过这本身就是矛盾的，除非能力到了一定水平

happyman2000UID: 136936

多谢指点！严重感谢！