[carefree-bob]

None of those are monopolies, unless you consider someone selling a sandwich on a particular plane as a monopoly and the people on the plane are your market, in which case it is exactly this situation, and why that sandwich doesn't cost $100.

So instead of trying to think of complications, you need to first understand the argument, and then you can see it everywhere once you understand it.

[kulahan]

I’m simply saying it’s incorrect to assume that everything everywhere is as cheap as possible. This is true in MANY INDUSTRIES, but not everywhere, and it’s absolutely nothing like a rule.

You, I think, are tying it into a larger discussion about monopolies, but I’m not sure that makes sense because if you’re a monopoly, you don’t have competitors to beat on price, so you again would not charge the least amount possible. That makes no sense.

[carefree-bob]

> I’m simply saying it’s incorrect to assume that everything everywhere is as cheap as possible.

This is a non-sequitur. Please read the post and reply to what I wrote (or don't reply) - not to whatever ghosts are dancing in your head. I think the combination of you not understanding what I wrote, yet somehow getting triggered by it, and then launching on a debate with a interlocutor that exists only in your mind is the reason why you are objecting to things I said by providing examples that solidify my case.

[kulahan]

lol, what other weird fantasies do you have about how I'm reacting? Relax buddy. I do not have to engage with your entire comment, I can comment on a specific part, or even just talk about something it reminds me of, as it turns out. If that's too much for you to handle, stop commenting? I dunno.

I really just didn't care much about most of what you had to say, because it was based entirely on an incorrect premise. I skipped like 80% of it.