This does not contradict diminishing marginal utility. DMU
proposes that
for a given good, after some amount, extra amounts yield ever
diminishing
extra utility.
My use of contradiction was misleading. Here I have no dissent to Fred.
If a particular threshold of income is needed in
Dear armchairs,
i think there is a at least partial contradiction between the hypothesis of
diminishing marginal return of income and the hypothesis that people care about
consuming more than their neighbors or about earning more than their neighbors (Frank:
Luxury Fever). If the latter is
i think there is a at least partial contradiction between the hypothesis
of diminishing marginal return of income and the hypothesis that people
care about consuming more than their neighbors or about earning more than
their neighbors (Frank: Luxury Fever). If the latter is true than the
Dear armchairs,
i think there is a at least partial contradiction between the hypothesis
of diminishing marginal return of income and the hypothesis that people care
about consuming more than their neighbors or about earning more than their
neighbors (Frank: Luxury Fever). If the latter is
i think there is a at least partial contradiction between the hypothesis
of diminishing marginal return of income and the hypothesis that people
care about consuming more than their neighbors or about earning more
than
their neighbors (Frank: Luxury Fever). If the latter is true than the
--- Tigger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred ( Alpius) are acting dense.
Density is efficient. With greater density, we get more mass per volume,
thus a more efficient use of space.
A desire to earn more than the neighbors seems to say that at a level
equal to the neighbor, the next dollar has
