I’m also not saying let’s ban it. It’s a thought experiment. The intended conclusion (though maybe my comment was too cryptic) was that if banning X in general (where X = “entering the market with a slightly better service”) is obviously wealth-reducing, then that means allowing X is wealth-increasing, so a random individual instance of X is probably wealth-increasing as well.
And the example in your post looks to me like a quite typical instance of X. It’s not unusually bad. Most instances of X will look like stealing customers, putting incumbents out of business and so on. I’m saying it’s all right, the benefit over time is bigger than that.
I’m also not saying let’s ban it. It’s a thought experiment. The intended conclusion (though maybe my comment was too cryptic) was that if banning X in general (where X = “entering the market with a slightly better service”) is obviously wealth-reducing, then that means allowing X is wealth-increasing, so a random individual instance of X is probably wealth-increasing as well.
And the example in your post looks to me like a quite typical instance of X. It’s not unusually bad. Most instances of X will look like stealing customers, putting incumbents out of business and so on. I’m saying it’s all right, the benefit over time is bigger than that.