joshhsoj1902

Every province have a carbon pricing model, how did you miss that?

Provinces had the option to build their own system, or use one provided by the feds.

Judging from your other comments you have some very large fundamental misunderstandings of how the system works. I think you need to take a good hard look at where you've been getting your information, someone is lying to you and you're falling for it.

You're so close. So very close.

If company A uses gas, they have to pay a little more carbon tax, and that extra costs end up in the final product.

But lucky for you! Company B also exists, they crunched the numbers and found that over the life of their vehicle it is actually cheaper to use EVs, in their case their end product is a little cheaper than what Company A could provide.

Then you go to the store and you see option A and B, you see B is cheaper and you buy it.

The carbon pricing model has now worked exactly as economists have been saying for decades.

What are you talking about?

The carbon pricing plan from the federal level applies to every province. Each province has the option to create whatever program they wish to put a price on carbon, if they don't WANT to create their own program they can choose to use the default carbon rebate program managed by the federal government.

Any province using the carbon rebate program is doing so by choice. And if you don't like it you should be talking to your provincial politicians and encouraging them to setup whatever system you prefer.

You can't blame the federal government because your conservative provincial government is unable to actually solve any of it's own problems (but that seems to be the conservative strategy these days)

Apple users don't have a choice.

Users should still have choices after they pick their OS. This isn't a new concept, Microsoft has been dealing with this same thing for decades. Just because Apple is now being asked to play by the same rules you're having a hissy fit. It's hilarious! 😂

I'm confused. You do seem to understand that apple developers don't have a choice, but PC/game developers do. But you fail to understand that those are different?

I don't think I can help you understand.

Apple: if you want to sell apps to iOS users you have to pay Apple, there is no other option.

Valve: if you want to sell your game on our platform you can, but you don't have to, there are many other options you can choose to distribute your games.

Does that help you understand?

Lol.

There aren't even any major sporting venues in that area.

The people who you "know" clearly do not live in the area.

How are EVs not the solution for people who need vehicles?

Everytime I hear this, the response is "we need better public transit, and EVs for all the people who can't effectively be serviced by public transit"

Which is like sure, if we had more money we could solve both, and many places are trying to solve public transit (but it's slow and expensive to do right).

EVs are part of the solution. But there are many parts to this solution. Pretending that EVs aren't needed doesn't actually help at all.

I thought I listed a bunch of cases where there were options (and not monopolies). But yes, 100% inside many ecosystems are monopolies, and those ecosystems/walled gardens have been slowly expanding every chance these companies have.

I'm saying the competition can only exist because products that actually fill the same need.

If you decide that you need product A, and have multiple options on where to get that, you have competition.

So if you're looking for a Cola, you have options.

If you're looking to play StardewValley, you have options where you want to buy it and which platform you want to play it on, you don't need to buy a new game system to play it.

If you're looking to play the latest Zelda game, you don't have options, you need to buy a Switch.

If you're looking to watch Ozarks, you don't have options, you can only watch Netflix.

If you're looking to just have something playing on TV and don't really care what it is, you have options.

If you're looking to listen to music, you have options, most of the steaming services have most of the music.

If you're looking to be able to text friends, you have options, any phone will work.

If you're looking to be able to iMessage friends and for your case only iMessage will work, iPhone is your only option.

Competition is complex and is more dependent on a consumer needs than just classification of what a product is. In your earlier point you used Apple as an example of a company that can increase prices despite competition, but really Apple is a prime example of a company putting up walls to an ecosystem making it really hard to leave once you're in.

Generally in the current tech landscape there barely is any competition outside openish platforms. But with tech, you often can't look at competition as product A vs Product B. Like while we can say that Window competes with OSx, it's harder to say that a Mac laptop competes with a given Dell laptop (because what you can do with each OS is different to different people).

This is why I like to think of all the tv streaming services as different types of food stores. There is no supermarket that supplies everything, you're forced to have memberships to the single butcher, the single milk man, the single bakery, etc. if you want a particular food, there is currently no (or very little) competition. You can certainly survive on just bread, and people are happy to do that, but that bakery can and will increase prices whenever because they aren't really competing with the butcher.

I still think you're looking at competition slightly wrong.

Coke and Pepsi do compete with eachother, along with the rest of the drink market. And overall prices in that industry are pretty low, some people will buy other competitors (the store brand Cola's). But overall competition is working.

Apple only kinda competes. Sure a phone is a phone and a laptop is a laptop. But unless someone is entering the market for the first time. They already have applications they are looking to use, so if you need an iPhone, you need an iPhone, and same for a Mac. But if you're an android or Windows user, suddenly you have a lot more choice because there is lots of competition!

The reason companies setup walled gardens, or pay for exclusive access to a piece of media is to erode competition. If a user wants that thing, they can only get it from that one place.

It's only competition if they provide similar products.

The current landscape is like farmers markets and butchers. Sure they both provide food, but they don't really directly compete with eachother.