Re: bundling is inherently unfair to consumers

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

"Lewis A. Mettler" wrote:

>
> However, the real fallacy in the example is caused by the fact that the
> tire company does not have a monopoly at all.  No tire company does.
> And, as I recall, the example did not say that tires were only sold with
> the pound of beef.  If it is only a come-on then that might be
> advertising.
>

There ya go again, Mr. Mettler.

Once again, as someone shoots another hole into your absurd thesis that ALL
bundling is harmful, you bring up the utterly irrelevant (from the point of
view of proving or disproving your thesis) point that the tire company does
not have a monopoly.

But then, wonder of wonders, you actually come close to agreeing with
Guilbert's point that this particular come-on is just a form of advertising.

Come on, Lewis.  Just admit the obvious.  Not ALL bundling is harmful to the
consumer, especially when the consumer has choices, either to buy the
unbundled product or to buy a similar product from another supplier.
And then we can talk about the bundling that we ALL agree is harmful.