You're right, I initially completely misinterpreted your point -- sorry about that. I edited my response accordingly. My new point is simply this: You can make

You're right, I initially completely misinterpreted your point -- sorry about that. I edited my response accordingly. My new point is simply this: You can make this argument about anything whose value declines relative to other things; it doesn't make it a useful interpretation of the actual market trends. For example, I could say that the price of computational resources hasn't been falling over the past few decades due to advances in computer efficiency an speed; no, rather I claim that this is just an illusion -- the cost of computation has actually remained fixed, while the price of literally everything else in the world has been rising, as long as we denominate them in terms of computational resources! But this is silly and doesn't reflect what's actually happening, because I'm subtly making an axiomatic/unfalsifiable assertion here (that the 'true cost' of computational resources is fixed). It might be easy to misconstrue as reflective of truth because many things do rise in cost, so it intuitively might seem like a profound alternate viewpoint on reality that logically checks out. But, in reality, the viewpoint is simply wrong / not useful -- a reflection merely of an axiomatic assertion yielding a tautological claim, with no external evidence to back it up.