return2ozma@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world · 1 year agoWhat's something you bought under $25 on Amazon that is a life changer and why?message-squaremessage-square50fedilinkarrow-up129arrow-down127
arrow-up12arrow-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 · 1 year agomessage-square50fedilink
minus-squareDeceptichum@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·1 year 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-squarePrimarily0617@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 year agoThe “highest cost possible” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
minus-squareDeceptichum@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoNo, it’s at the consumers wallet.
minus-squareDeceptichum@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoThe highest cost is hard set by what the consumer is able to spend. They cannot go higher.
minus-squarePrimarily0617@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year 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-squareDeceptichum@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoMarkets have a carrying capacity. You cannot exceed this, it’s not a cartoonish “all the money you have”
minus-squarePrimarily0617@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoSo “highest cost” isn’t set by “what the consumer is able to spend”? So what’s it set by?
minus-squareDeceptichum@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months agoAre you like an idiot or something? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know how many times I can keep saying the same basic thing to you. It’s set by the maximum market rate, that being the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue.
minus-squareHello_there@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-21 year agoSo private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?
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.
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?
Are you like an idiot or something? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know how many times I can keep saying the same basic thing to you.
It’s set by the maximum market rate, that being the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue.
So private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?