>>21035645Regarding the profitability:
Why weren't there connection there? If it is deemed profitable to expand human settlement in that area, beyond the cost of servicing it, why wouldn't someone attempt this profitable project?
Because if you say there's a net benefit in value, someone would be willing to reap that.
Otherwise why would you want infrastructure to be built there if it is unprofitable
That would be like supporting protectionism because it renders previously submarginal land, profitable again though artificially.
>are you even trying to understand my exampleAssuming the infrastructure is owned by a third party company as it's often the case, the most profitable operator would be the one to afford the use of the infrastructure as it would be the one most capable to fund the third party and therefore the one offering larger gains to the third party. If said company were to become submarginal, the third party would be acting in its interests to accept other operators.
The result is obviously that the submarginal company will get pushed out of business eventually.
If the infrastructure is not owned by a third party, but by the company itself, and said company were to become submarginal, investors would be acting in their interests to purchase said infrastructure to establish a non - submarginal operator.
I'm using my mobile so it could sound a bit confused cuz I don't like typying on mobile.
