nobody would say that the benefits of computers are a positive externality that isn't priced into their price You're the one who said that the increase in pric

nobody would say that the benefits of computers are a positive externality that isn't priced into their price You're the one who said that the increase in price of a resource already accounted for its benefit to the producer. You can't use the fact that I broke your argument to then construct a straw man. Besides, if someone used the same one dimensional environmental argument against the pricing of computers (which they sometimes do), then I would be consistent in the defense of the beneficial externalities of computers. Bog-standard neo-classical economics You got me there, you named A theory. Hey, here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality Right there they mention "invention". My claim is that inexpensive electricity has led to many inventions because people have more time to invent and more resources with which to invent. Because of cheap electricity, we have more people alive because they could afford air conditioning and well refrigerated foods. Some of those people have invented things. If "Invention" is a beneficial externality (or more properly has positive externalities), then the predicate of invention, "cheap electricity" is also a beneficial externality. If the actual price for the resources is too high, that will retard development Use of a resources normally has a critical minimum price before it's used commonly or at all. Why do you think the title of this article is "Cost of Gene Sequencing Falls Raising Hopes for Medical Advances"? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/technology/cost-of-gene-sequencing-falls-raising-hopes-for-medical-advances.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/technology/cost-of-gene-se... Gene sequencing has negative externalities too. There's a loss of privacy. There is a possibility that terrorists could release gene-based biological agents that could wipe out segments of societies. Should we price that into gene sequencing now "just in case"? it's a matter of not double-counting those benefits I could just as easily say you're double-counting the costs of electricity since society (to a small and appropriate degree) views its generation as harmful to the environment and so they already have less of a demand for it. That would be a nonsense argument to since consumers don't typically factor in non-sequitor benefits and negativities during price negotiation.