6 ms·
Right. That is not a paradox as stated. The paradox would be: * a TV used to be really expensive. So a home just had one * over time TVs become half the
by TheLudd 5mo ago
Right. That is not a paradox as stated.
The paradox would be:
* a TV used to be really expensive. So a home just had one
* over time TVs become half the price.
* now a home has 3 TVs, i.e paying 150% of what they initially payed.
- IshKebab 5mo agoIt is a paradox. The paradox is that increasing the efficiency of resource usage can lead to more resource usage. If you think that isn't a paradox because you can fairly easily explain why that is the case, you need to go and check what "paradox" means.
- TheLudd 5mo agoYou said: > No, we pay less for it. But there's much higher demand so overall use goes up. This is economics 101, not a paradox. To clarify how I read you: "If the price goes down, more people will want to buy, hence more units are sold" The paradox is that _one_ person, or entity, pays more as the price goes down.