You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
And "the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue" is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly. Meaning the "highest cost" is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
As an addendum, you haven't really mentioned anything past a vague idea of "maximum cost" until now, so I'm not really sure what you mean about repeating yourself. Are you okay, friend?
So private telecoms frantically lowering their prices when a public-funded internet company launches is just a coincidence?