Competition, whether it is physical or intangible, is often used to define the boundaries of the market.

It is the key to the success of businesses and to the way they are valued by customers.

So it is worth considering whether there is a competitive advantage to having one or two suppliers.

Some companies that make goods and services are often described as competitively uncompetitive.

It’s a commonly held perception that if you are a low cost company that sells a lot of low cost goods and you make a lot more money than your competitors, you should be allowed to keep all the profits you make.

This is the thinking behind the concept of “cost parity”.

For example, if you sell a small range of low-cost items to a large retailer, you will be expected to sell the same products to the same retailers, and the smaller retailer will be able to make more money from the items.

It might seem like a reasonable argument.

But as businesses and governments start to invest in new technologies, it is important to look at how much they pay for their products and how they make money on their products.

As we look at the competitive landscape, the focus is shifting to price.

The cost of buying a product from one supplier to another has increased, which means that there is less incentive for small business to produce their own products.

What we are seeing now is that a significant portion of the cost of the average household goods is borne by the household.

This means that the cost for the average consumer is much higher than the cost it would be if it were the case that most households were spending less than the amount of money they spent buying the goods.

A report published last month by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has shown that over the past 15 years, the average price of household goods has increased by an average of 6.6 per cent a year.

But the price of goods that are made by small businesses has increased only by 1.7 per cent over the same period.

The report also showed that over this same period, the share of the population aged 25-54 who had an annual income of less than $30,000 has increased from 14 per cent to 23 per cent.

This implies that the average person making $30 a year would be paying over $8,000 a year more in taxes, as a result of their consumption.

What do you think?

Is this a fair assumption?

Should we be asking the average taxpayer to pay more in tax?

Or should we be paying less?

Should the government be subsidising small businesses and encouraging them to buy the cheapest products available to them?

Or are there other costs to competition that we should be paying more attention to?

Let us know what you think.