1. Incorrect. The correct answer is A. A large increase in the number of fast-food restaurants in a community is most likely to result in: A. Lower prices and higher quality. B. Lower prices and lower quality. C. Higher prices and higher quality. D. Don't Know
You and I and the bloke down the road all know that having 10 Maccas in the street is worse than having no Maccas in existence anywhere on the plant.
That's economics. Billionaires don't become billionaires by making the world a better place,
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
The sausage suburbs of Sydney all cheer when a Macias turns up in their illserviced expensive locale.
Now they can go out to a proper restaurant and enjoy some mince.The sausage suburbs of Sydney all cheer when a Macias turns up in their illserviced expensive locale.
Now they can go out to a proper restaurant and enjoy some mince.
If a town has a single burger joint, then it can charge high prices and serve crappy food because there's no other choice for consumers. If a second burger joint opens next door then consumers have a choice - they will eat where prices are lower and the food is better, so both vendors are forced to compete against each other on both cost and quality.
I get what you're saying though - that if the town also has high quality restaurants as well as fast food joints, then the overall quality of food in the town will deteriorate due to a greater prevalence of fast food in general. But we can't assume there are any other restaurants in the town. The question assumes there are only fast-food places. The correct answer should maybe have been worded like this...
A: Lower priced and higher quality fast food.
Unfortunately no.
This question and it's incorrect 'correct' answer has much to say about a fatal flaw in capitalism.
Evolution has wired us to seek out three things that are rare in nature: fat, sugar and salt.
The less someone uses their frontal cortex and the more they rely on their mammalian and reptile brains to make purchasing decisions for them, the more likely they are to purchase lower quality food with higher quantities of fat, sugar and salt in them.
People who make purchasing decisions on instinct are only price sensitive, not quality sensitive.
As the competition amoung fast food vendors increases, a price war will develop, forcing the least efficient of them to cut corners with quality and load up their food with the gastronomic equivalent of heroin.
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret. Ambrose Bierce
This question and it's incorrect 'correct' answer has much to say about a fatal flaw in capitalism.
Evolution has wired us to seek out three things that are rare in nature: fat, sugar and salt.
The less someone uses their frontal cortex and the more they rely on their mammalian and reptile brains to make purchasing decisions for them, the more likely they are to purchase lower quality food with higher quantities of fat, sugar and salt in them.
People who make purchasing decisions on instinct are only price sensitive, not quality sensitive.
As the competition amoung fast food vendors increases, a price war will develop, forcing the least efficient of them to cut corners with quality and load up their food with the gastronomic equivalent of heroin.
Salt is rare in nature? The ocean is full of salt. Did you drink a bit of it in your youth or something?
Sugar and fat aren't rare either, they have just become easier to access.
As the competition amoung fast food vendors increases, a price war will develop, forcing the least efficient of them to cut corners with quality and load up their food with the gastronomic equivalent of heroin.
No. Costs can only be cut so far while still remaining profitable, and customers will buy where they can find the best quality food. Vendors will be forced to compete on quality. The correct answer is correct. Monopolies are bad for consumers. Increased choice is good for consumers. Economics 101.
"The truth is that there are no good men, or bad men. It is the deeds that have goodness or badness in them. There are good deeds, and bad deeds. Men are just men."
Salt is rare in nature? The ocean is full of salt. Did you drink a bit of it in your youth or something?
Sugar and fat aren't rare either, they have just become easier to access.
True that salt, sugar and fat are not rare in nature.
But of all the things you can eat in nature, they make up a very small proportion.
Our brains and digestive systems are designed to extract as much energy as possible from everything we consume. We are designed to become as fat as we possibly can so we can survive days on end without sustenance.
We are also designed to have as much sex as we can with as many different people as we can, to fight or kill our rivals and to treat anyone we don't know or who looks different as a potential threat.
The less intelligent amongst us find it hard to overcome their base instincts. They chomp, root and fight their way to an early grave.
Sadly, they reach sexual maturity before they die so natural selection does not spare us from the next generation of these evolutionary throwbacks.
Something like that anyway.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
No. Costs can only be cut so far while still remaining profitable, and customers will buy where they can find the best quality food.
Quote:
Vendors will be forced to compete on quality. The correct answer is correct. Monopolies are bad for consumers. Increased choice is good for consumers. Economics 101.
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret. Ambrose Bierce
No. Costs can only be cut so far while still remaining profitable.
Costs can always be reduced and there is no minimum cost of anything.
You can turn a profit without charging the consumer anything.
I don't pay Alex for access to this website.
Matthew, 30 Jan 2016, 09:21 AM Your simplistic view is so flawed it is not worth debating. The current oversupply will be swallowed in 12 months. By the time dumb shits like you realise this prices will already be rising.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy