> Competition on its own is a very bad system for improving organizations as is selects for the most ruthless and underhanded, not the best for society.

If a company is ruthlessly screwing you but you have 50 other viable alternatives, nothing is forcing you to continue using them, which is a disadvantage for them, not an advantage.

If a company is lying to you, there are already laws against that, and on top of that actual competition means you also get to stop doing business with them.

Which companies screw people the most, the ones with limited competition (Comcast, Microsoft, Boeing) or the ones with lots of competition (Costco, Framework, IKEA)?