*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

"Choice" can be thought of as a cover-all. It's not like ten is 100% increase over five or is even better than five in the first place. There are so many different things at play.

Look at search engines. What is that, is that a monopoly? A duopoly? Does labeling it based on quantity of production and market share tell us anything about how that quantity of production and market share is impacted by that label? Not really.

What we want to look at instead is all the related incentives. For example, Bing is a little bitch compared to Google. But Bing isn't a little bitch since Bing is one of the main reasons why Google is so good. After all, if Bing didn't try to compete with Google, it is likely that Google would not have improved so many of its offerings in order to stay numero uno. And what about all the other ones like DuckDuckGo or Yahoo? They're not doing much of anything in the market, right? Wrong. Well, maybe wrong. They're not perfect alternatives to Google, people tend to use them for niche reasons. But if Google upsets people enough or if Google doesn't develop one specific niche enough, then Google loses a proportion of its customer base to those others. And this is very bad for Google, much worse than the "incomes" of any people at Google suggests it is.

So, while the search engine market can be said to only have a certain amount of "choice", it can be thought of as operating fully with choice since the producers and consumers in the market are all operating voluntarily.

[OngBonga]

Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

Just like energy choice isn't about nuclear power plants vs solar. Most people cannot afford to install stuff like solar panels and turbines.

For competition to mean anything, choice needs to be comparable in price.

[wufwugy]

Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

It is choice. Just not a very good choice. And it is a type of choice that still has enough marginal impact on businesses that can really impact their decisions.

[OngBonga]

It is choice. Just not a very good choice.

This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.

[wufwugy]

This is rather like saying if you don't like the train service to work, you can always walk 10 miles.

Yeah. It IS. And it matters. I explained in the post I referenced earlier how just this small amount of choice is possibly responsible for a lot of "keeping the company in line".

The example you gave is a little extreme; quite a lot happens before a person decides to walk ten miles instead of take the train.

Government regulation of an industry where the choices are not that great doesn't fix the problem, and it makes the natural function of the market regarding overcoming that problem less effective.

[wufwugy]

The example you gave is a little extreme; quite a lot happens before a person decides to walk ten miles instead of take the train.

I think expounding on this can exemplify well why private roads/transportation can work quite well.

What is the "lot that happens" before a person decides to walk ten miles to a job instead of taking a train? Well, most of it I won't mention here because there's so much, but one of them is that for a person to walk ten miles to a job instead of taking a train, that person would likely need a HUGE pay raise. Like maybe ten or twenty more an hour, maybe more. Walking ten miles to work is quite costly, and it is directly on the worker (or potential worker). That worker then puts the cost on his employer (or potential employer). Where then would the employer put that cost? A variety of places, one of which includes the causer of why the worker is deciding to walk ten miles instead of taking the train.

Since in this scenario, this problem is not just to one person, but to a very large number of people all at once, there would be a lot of employers who have very strong incentive to get the train company to shape up. There are a variety of ways they can do it; one might be to pool together and buy the train company out, and then make the train experience as efficient as possible so that then their workers and potential workers will demand less wage in order to work.

This is essentially the process by which private roads would likely work. The worse the travel conditions, the worse it is for every damn employee and employer in the area and that is believed to be reflected in wages so well that this concept is covered in labor economics textbooks. Then incentives in a private road system would be towards getting people to and from where they produce and consume as efficiently as possible. Indeed, it could be the case that businesses would operate at a loss on roads just so they can make travel as efficient as possible. Most firms already do this sort of thing, like operating at a loss on printers to get more of them in people's hands then making profits on the ink.

[Savy]

Bottled water vs tap water is not choice, not when it comes to washing. Drinking, sure, but not everyday household chores.

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

[wufwugy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

This guy fucks.

[wufwugy]

If duckface is women presenting how sex-seeking they are (it is), then cuckface is men presenting how much prepped-bull jizz they can fit in their mouths.

[wufwugy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

I should clarify something.

If the premise is that the tap water company raises its price, then quantity demanded would fall (move left along the demand curve) and the company would decrease supply (shift the supply curve left) if it didn't want to produce a surplus of water. Then in complement markets (like faucets), demand would decrease (shift the demand curve left), and in substitution markets (like bottled water), demand would increase (shift the demand curve right). This would send incentive signals dependent on what happened to expected profits in the respective markets and among the respective firms. Over time this could yield a decline in demand for the tap water from that specific company because the competition over those potential profits would eventually achieve lower prices than before, and this would result in the demand for the original tap water company decreasing.

[Savy]

Actually what you'd do is wash less. As everyone would be in the same situation washing less would become more normal and therefore prices would drop, especially when people are buying purely bottled water to drink. Well what would actually happen is the government would intervene and ban bottled water but you know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302

Just saying