I'm getting a little off-track here, and had the same reaction as you, but I think in general the idea that "as competition increases to infinity, consumer choi

I'm getting a little off-track here, and had the same reaction as you, but I think in general the idea that "as competition increases to infinity, consumer choice increases to infinity as well" isn't quite right. I think there's an implicit assumption that as options increase, variability in those choice options offered increases as well, which isn't always the case. To the extent that the competitors all are constrained by some common variable (a business model oriented around loaned money, for example), they will not vary along some variables, which might result in the absence of some critical choice option. I guess I'm feeling nitpicky about this but sometimes I think the US really needs some collective reflection on the meaning of competition, who is supplying it (private, public, government, etc.), how it is attained (choice expression through monetary-based purchases or non-monetary mechanisms such as votes) and so forth. Often I think you can think of government services or regulation as another competitive mechanism; it's just attained indirectly through votes, and might encourage competition in different ways (e.g., either by acting as a competitor directly, as in the case of the USPS, or by changing the constraint landscape as in the case of regulation).