3 ms·
I mean, yeah, that's an incredibly small amount of money to get everyone else to do something. I'd pay $1000 to have everyone lose their cars. Heck, if you coul
by renewiltord 3y ago
I mean, yeah, that's an incredibly small amount of money to get everyone else to do something. I'd pay $1000 to have everyone lose their cars. Heck, if you could guarantee it would happen, I will pay $100k today so that everyone in the USA can no longer drive their cars.
That means the opposite. The disutility is really low and the network utility is positive. If I charged you $29 to have all your peers lose Tik Tok, you'd say no. $29 is too much because Tik Tok doesn't hurt that much.
Think about how much you'd pay for something that actually hurt. Would your ceiling be $28? I think not.
- calmworm 3y agoWhy would you pay $100k to stop people driving their cars?
- renewiltord 3y agoI just feel like it and I have the money. What cause will have you pay $28 to stop but not $29? Lunch for two at The Bird?
- pcthrowaway 3y ago> I will pay $100k today so that everyone in the USA can no longer drive their cars. It's nice to know that you'd happily pay a sum of money you're capable of paying to ensure ambulances can't get their patients to a hospital, people can't drive their wives in labor to have the baby delivered, trucks can't transport medicine between cities, farmers have no efficient way to get their food distributed once harvested.
- renewiltord 3y agoIf God has said that you are to die, then who is a doctor to challenge that? I will gladly pay $100k to support God's will but I won't pay $100,001.
- aembleton 3y agoAmbulances and trucks aren't cars. They'd be able to move around easier without cars taking up space.