4 ms·

I'd say it's a significant result because it's a situation where natural competition causes a negative outcome for everyone. Having to walk 1/2 mile for ice cre

I'd say it's a significant result because it's a situation where natural competition causes a negative outcome for everyone. Having to walk 1/2 mile for ice cream is certainly at least as bad of an experience as having to walk 1/4 mile, probably strictly worse for most people. It seems likely that both vendors will lose some customers compared with the original scenario, and that the average customer experience will be worse. If the same person ran both carts, or if they were run by the government, then they would be spaced far apart (the original position), which would be better for everyone.

mmt 8y ago
> which would be better for everyone. I agree that the spacing would be, overall, better, but that, by no means, guarantees that the monopoly would be better. We have plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. It's important to keep this particular economic "law" in perspective: it's a very specific, negative effect of competition. It doesn't mean that competition on the whole is undesirable.
cbsmith 8y ago
> I'd say it's a significant result because it's a situation where natural competition causes a negative outcome for everyone. Not everyone. It's a sweet deal for people in the middle.