@return2ozma@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world • 2 years agoWhat's something you bought under $25 on Amazon that is a life changer and why?message-square40fedilinkarrow-up120arrow-down119
arrow-up11arrow-down1message-squareWhat's something you bought under $25 on Amazon that is a life changer and why?@return2ozma@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world • 2 years agomessage-square40fedilink
minus-squarePrimarily0617linkfedilink1•2 years agoMy point being that while a duopoly may seem like a worst case scenario, it very much isn’t.
minus-squareDeceptichumlinkfedilink2•2 years agoMy point is that is isn’t any better or worse when there isn’t competition. You’re still a captive market being charged the highest costs possible.
minus-squareHello_therelinkfedilink1•edit-22 years agoSo private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?
minus-squarePrimarily0617linkfedilink1•edit-22 years agoThe “highest cost possible” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
minus-squareDeceptichumlinkfedilink1•2 years agoThe highest cost is hard set by what the consumer is able to spend. They cannot go higher.
minus-squarePrimarily0617linkfedilink1•2 years agoif that’s how you want to define “highest cost”, then goods absolutely aren’t priced at highest cost in a duopoly they aren’t even priced at highest cost in a monopoly, because “all the money a person has” is just cartoon logic
minus-squareDeceptichumlinkfedilink1•2 years agoMarkets have a carrying capacity. You cannot exceed this, it’s not a cartoonish “all the money you have”
minus-squarePrimarily0617linkfedilink1•2 years agoSo “highest cost” isn’t set by “what the consumer is able to spend”? So what’s it set by?
My point being that while a duopoly may seem like a worst case scenario, it very much isn’t.
My point is that is isn’t any better or worse when there isn’t competition.
You’re still a captive market being charged the highest costs possible.
So private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?
The “highest cost possible” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
No, it’s at the consumers wallet.
I don’t know what this means
The highest cost is hard set by what the consumer is able to spend.
They cannot go higher.
if that’s how you want to define “highest cost”, then goods absolutely aren’t priced at highest cost in a duopoly
they aren’t even priced at highest cost in a monopoly, because “all the money a person has” is just cartoon logic
Markets have a carrying capacity.
You cannot exceed this, it’s not a cartoonish “all the money you have”
So “highest cost” isn’t set by “what the consumer is able to spend”? So what’s it set by?