comment: >
  
  When people say markets are efficient, they mean they are efficient at solving the economic calculation problem. That is, markets efficiently can allocate the proper amount of  resources to produce a proper amount of supply and set fair prices. 
  In an artificial example where the number of companies, experts, and so on are artificially fixed, no system can ever be maximally efficient, except by serendipity. 
  In the real world, a market economy may respond by incentivizing the production of new experts or by one of the companies losing and being absorbed by the other. 
  "But, wait", you might say, "that still doesn't solve the issue of sequestered parallel development, because obviously competition exists in real market economies. Isn't that just wasted development?" Yes and no. There is waste in redundancy, but there is also value in it. Competition to meet demand is what allows for markets to be efficient at the economic calculation problem. Open markets solve this issue through a complex network of actors addressing their own local needs and abilities to satisfy others needs. The alternative, a centralized monolithic agent that tries to efficiently guess the needs to distributed actors and meet them in a fair way is incredibly hard, leading to other inefficiencies, and prone to abuse. Hence why we generally don't like monopolies. 
  The reality is that no system is without waste. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Free markets are not perfect, no system is, but they are efficient.
context: So, the time to develop the product would be N*2. That is a halving of the speed of development.
  
  This isn't actually how development time usually scales, but even if it were, the problem is why are any of these people developing anything? Are they being paid? By whom? And why? What are the peoples motivations? It's very easy to imagine 50 highly motivated people working faster than 100 unmotivated people. You can come up with all manner of critique of capitalism if you want, but we can at least describe the motivation as those people are competing for profits. You talk about "halving the speed of development", but halving only makes sense if you're comparing the system to something else. But what are you comparing it to and how do you account for those hypothetical workers' productivity? >
  
  I don't think I understand your example.
  If you have 2 companies with 50 people each, wouldn't you end up with twice the amount after the extended time? There really is no slowdown - perhaps a lack in flexibility, but not in creation of goods.
  Unless, of course, you're talking about purely scientific developments - which really can't be scaled like that to begin with... >
  
  It is one of the most nonsensical CMVs I have seen so far...it even fails to consider capitalism. There are many economic models with competition that are not capitalistic. >
  
  You're missing a huge part of the equation: what happens to the commodities after they are produced, and how much of the commodity should be produced?
  An essential concept of economics (and human behavior) is that more is better than less, but that everything exhibits diminishing marginal utility. For a concrete example, it means that two pieces of cake is always better than one piece of cake, but the second piece of cake will be less valuable than the first piece of cake (ie. once you start getting full you don't want cake as much). However, each piece of cake costs the same, so even if the first piece of cake is worth less than the cost to purchase it, eventually the value of the Nth piece of cake will be less than the cost of a cake and so you should stop buying cake.
  In your example you've implicitly assumed that 1 commodity every N hours is preferable to 1 commodity every N*2 hours, but because of diminishing marginal utility once you factor in costs this may not actually be true. It could be that the optimal amount of commodity is actually 1 every N*2 hours, in which case the remaining 50 people should actually be working on a different commodity.
  A second concern is that if all 100 people work on making the commodity, it will actually be in their best interest to not work as hard as they could, because by working less there will be less of the commodity on the market, which means they can sell each commodity for more, sacrificing only a little money for leisure time. This is an example of monopolistic behavior.
  Capitalism (with competition) addresses these concerns by making sure the amount of the commodity that gets produced matches the optimal amount of the commodity that people actually want and are willing to pay for.