Something is seriously wrong with this post of yours -

My points 1, 2 and 3 were prefixed with "It makes the alternative unviable by". So "it" in the points 1, 2 and 3 meant alternative products.

Now read my post again. If a cartel wants to increase prices of alternative of its product, it needs to raise input prices of the sellers of the alternatives of its product.

I don't read this post of yours in more detail, because it suffers from an enormous misreading of my post.

No, you have to be stupid to not infer it.

Consider the statement "People should do C if A is true"

1. The READER is evaluating the predicate "A is true".
2. Recommendation is clearly for PEOPLE, not for the reader.

If, instead, you had said "you should do C if A is true", the "you" can conceivably considered to be addressing the reader.

No, cartel doesn't just increase the price of its own product mindlessly. It makes the alternative unviable by
1. getting it outlawed using the said "coercive" force at its disposal
2. increasing its prices by increasing business costs - taxes, buying off the required middlemen using bribe / business "concessions" / threats
3. slandering it using immense media propaganda so that public boycotts the alternative or at least considers it far inferior

So your "unless" clause of coercive force is perfectly applicable here.

In a sensible operating system, applications would be in a menu categorized nicely. Using categories, you would be able to isolate applications within 4 or 5.

Even within that, tooltip for each application should have a short description to remove such doubts, but let us say such tooltips are also searched in case of the search paradigm so we can assume the applications are not kind enough to include tooltips.

So basically you are saying that in the real world where there IS the coercive agent i.e. government, this idea does not make business sense? Probably when the original poster said it does not make business sense, he meant the real world and not an imaginary one.

You should also rule out people working on remote machines with slow / high latency connections. I tried emacs, various IDEs, but it quickly gets frustrating.

With skydiving, the costs are not of hospitalization. Costs are of putting the pieces together, filling in a bag and taking it to a burial / cremation place. Undertaker probably charges extra for bodies in 20 pieces.

You are unable to understand the simple thing : The reader of your statement is not the subject of your advocacy.

Your advocacy amounts to : if YOU(the reader) are in a medical emergency, everyone should go get checked up in a hospital.

For rsilvergun, and many others, you are advocating that people in general should do C.

So you can't claim correctly that you are not advocating that people do C because it depends on the reader.

For rsilvergun, the addressee, it is same.

"A is true" will be evaluated by the reader. So whoever the reader, if the reader thinks "A is true", then the following 2 are equivalent :
1. "People should do C if A is true"
2. "People should do C"

Knowing fully well that your addressee, rsilvergun, does think "A is true", your statement amounts to "People should do C" for him. And for every other reader who thinks "A is true".

For rsilvergun, you are advocating "people should do C".

Exactly. Like I noticed you missed the adjective "possible" for defective in the second instance. I concluded not only a possible defect in your argument, but I concluded a likely defect in your argument. And I was right.

An unused declaration is very similar to this situation, and not only points out a possible defect but a likely one. Compiler could very well be right in his situation too.

It is a possible defect.

If you want proven defect, only a compilation error is a proven defect, so just turn off warnings while compiling.

For rsilvergun, what he thinks is reality.

When one says A, he means "I think A". Even if one says "he thinks A", he actually means "I think he thinks A".

Corollary : When one reads "if A then B", it means "if reader thinks A then B".

The original poster implied the labour market is very lop-sided because he thinks so. If you suggest him something *if* the labour market is very lop-sided, for him you suggested him that something.

Your opinion on labour market matters only if you suggested something *if* TsuruchiBrian thinks the labour market is very lop-sided.

We'll never know, at least in those examples, because you chose to use monopoly examples.

Ok, let us get this out of the picture because this is mentioned a lot in your post. Chas mentioned that internet capacity is deliberately under-provisioned. For this to be false, the ISPs do not have to satisfy 100% of peak possible demand - this is completely your invention. Even if the ISPs do not invest reasonably in improving network infrastructure, knowing well as every 10 year old knows for last 10 years that internet is a growing business, the under-provisioning is DELIBERATE. It is not just because it is the failure to satisfy 100% peak possible demand.

Hope this is understood - I am ignoring rest of your references to your absurd 100% peak possible demand which no one is talking about except you.

People talking long distances, while a growing business, is not as much a growing business as internet services. Taxis in new urban areas, or newly prosperous areas, are a much better example and their the taxi operators at times do have enough provisions for peak demand because peak is expected to grow. This also shows that lack of monopoly made the taxi operators upgrade the fleet. You mention that ISP's reluctance in upgrading is not due to monopolies without giving any reason - except the absurd interpretation of upgrade to mean 100% peak possible capacity.

Taxi example proves it is relevant. You do not give any reason why it is not.

They do in fast growing markets.

1. If you were Netflix in that analogy, you don't understand the situation at all. You said "I buy 100 Mbps link", and your situation had YOUR link become the bottleneck in serving 2 100 Mbps customers. Netflix situation is not like that.

2. It is not impossible for a content provider to profitably provide for increasing their customer's internet connectivity - see Google/Amazon's plans/dreams/bluffs for providing drone wifi-access points in non-connected areas, e.g. Africa. Google bid pi billion dollars to ensure "net neutrality", and is investing in Google Fiber, probably at a loss. All this had Google "invest" around less than a dollar per potential customer. If Google had much higher margin customers, they could have invested the 100 s of dollars per customer that upgrading 100 Mbps to 200Mbps requires.

Coming to your example, I didn't mention that, because typically it takes a lot more than 2 customers to be able to do such things - probably billion customers. But if the 2 customers give you enough margin, sure, why not. Netflix has nowhere close to billion customers, nor a margin enough to do that.

Exactly. Which is why you are having to ask who pays for upgrade. If you had a choice, it would have been upgraded by now.