One of the major problems with attempts by government to select winners in the selection of energy sources is that they are almost certain to select inefficient and quite possibly even environmentally
inferior choices compared to leaving these choices to the workings of the market.
In the previous installment we talked about the decoy effect, a cognitive bias that causes us to change the way we evaluate choices when
an inferior choice is introduced.
It has become acceptable to judge some choices (such as smoking) as always being bad, however, choices such as, «I just don't want to breastfeed because I don't want to be that tied down to my baby» are sometimes «hand - off» choices which nobody is allowed to judge for some reason as being
inferior choices.
I know that some people think supplements are
an inferior choice, and I don't understand that.
In terms of individual companies, however, a low payout ratio often identifies
an inferior choice.
The Brooks Card is mostly omitted because it is
an inferior choice, as we explain below.
A commercial kibble diet is commonly thought to be
an inferior choice when it comes to feeding our pooches, but with some «help», they can actually be quite nutritious.
It's absolutely
an inferior choice compared to many other burial insurance plans.
A guaranteed acceptance plan is simply
an inferior choice a vast majority if the time.
It is also
an inferior choice for anyone who tends to hop from job to job, or who has noticeable employment gaps.