Thread by @thomasforth

Proper menu that.

https://twitter.com/GroomB/status/1487865563875528708

Somewhat seriously though, there is lots of good economics to be done on the returns to varying amounts of choice. Did the focus these ladies were able to give to just three products improve both quality and efficiency? Or would more variety and choice be better? Do we know?

I typically chose restaurants by how small their menu is. The smaller the better. But then I have no dislikes and no allergies, which is quite rare.

The "is more choice good or bad?" question is top economics.
• >100 bus fares in Leeds vs 1 in London.
• 10 types of 'milk' in a supermarket vs. 2 or 3 a few decades ago.
• The Starbucks menu vs. a Milan café vs. a café in an English market.
• Go compare vs. British Gas.

ps. I actually think that this topic is one of the stronger points that traditionalists (I'm thinking Goodhart, Scruton, Blond, etc...) make, though I don't think they make it well. If there is a cost to choice, then there may also be a cost to some types of diversity.

We have this most visibly in religious food rules. If you have Kosher meat, Halal meat, and non-denominational meat then you're running three markets for what many people would consider an identical product. It must be a less efficient market, and everyone pays some of that cost.

This same effect happens in lots of society. If there are many religions, you'll be further from your church/temple/mosque. If some groups don't drink, you'll be further from a pub. etc... I find the benefits of diversity vastly outweigh these drawbacks, but denying them is daft.

ps. one of the best ways to make up for almost all of these slight downsides of diversity is with the power of density. You're probably closer to a Church or a pub in a diverse part of central Birmingham or London than you are in a suburb of people very similar to you.