2 ms·
Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money whether t
by CWuestefeld 15y ago
Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money whether they want to or not.
Thus, to your point, it's likely that the total amount of restaurant dining in Kuala Lumpur will decrease. Some people will choose not to pay the higher price, and stay home.
- fennecfoxen 15y agoIf you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. Presumably some business-owners will also see their costs rise. There may also be additional regulatory compliance costs in excess of the cost of the wifi connection cost itself. It also may mean that would-be restaurant owners cannot run services anywhere that it's impractical to run wifi. All this may discourage new business. And maybe it's not a big deal for this one regulation, but how many other similar small regulations will a business face when it's starting up? Dozens? Hundreds?
- CWuestefeld 15y agoIf you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. As the saying goes, being a good economist entails understanding what is not seen. I think you hit a bunch of those in this post, and I think you're correct across the board.