I didn't say that. I meant to imply that their reasons for opposing it would be specious. But since you're the second person to post that they were confused about that, the fault was clearly mine in being a bad communicator.

Every marketer and customer gets some easy benefit from a single marketplace to go with the most customers(for marketers) or marketers(for customers), maximizing the competitiveness of their respective markets. In the physical world, this naturalmonopoly is mitigated more than a little by the utility of physical proximity.

It's a bit like how social networks are successful because that's where all your friends are, but more complex since it involves multiple kinds of participants.

Amazon has filled that role online, particularly for books. And that advantage is can be leveraged for quite a premium. I'm not sure I see a nice clean solution to the problem either.

But, of course, we don't know that the density of the planet is comparable to earth.

Yeah, but we know from relatively basic studies of economics, (varying) on the exact elasticity of demand, that any sort of sane monopoly tends to price somewhere in the range of double to triple what a competitive market would.

Not the fantastical 20x you just proposed.

Yeah, actually let's figure out the moon or mars first. Hell, Venus is probably an easier technological challenge.

Teah, they call that "thust to weight ratio" you're referring to specific impulse

Hypothetically, fusion powered Hall ion engines might be able to manage something within an order of magnitude of that, I think.

But of course, we'd need a lightweight fusion reactor that produces electricity without a boiler. Such a thing has been proposed as possible, but it's definitely not available yet.

5.4 earth masses puts it at about 1/3rd of a Neptune or a tiny fraction of a Jupiter or a Saturn.

It might even have a thin enough atmosphere to not completely crush a human.

It comes from the fallacious belief that non-government created monopolies leveraging their position will face competitors who can "do it for less". The truth is that infrastructure just isn't that conducive to competition. Who'd want 3 different water/sewer systems connected to their house?

I'm aware of your hostility to being called assholes. That's totally and completely reasonable, unlike your proposed political system.

No, it's the money.

Given a few common, yet unproven, assumptions about how markets operate. ISPs operate a lot like utilities in terms of fundamental market behaviors, and the prevalence of natural monopolies. Organizing the structure of the market to allow smaller competitors, to me, is one way a government could help. Not the only way.

Somehow, I think I'll be seeing bullshit products on infomercials that are "proven" to enhance memory that won't actually do anything besides "be magnets that cost $100".(5 easy payments of $19.99)

This is a metric I had not seen nor considered before. I suppose due consideration is called for.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I wasn't sympathetic with your plight. Sorry. Busywork does actually suck. Just that a bit of physical labor as part of my work day wouldn't be unwelcome.