|
|
|
|
|
by dalbasal
2642 days ago
|
|
I think transistors were unique in that we had/have a serious ability to consume more of them. Compuers are half price?!! I'll take three. When the price of computing halved, we consumed more than twice as much, so that the industry still grew. Most other products/industries didn't have that kind of demand curve. Eventually, we had enough textile and we were happy to pay less for more (rather than pay more for way more). The textile industry stopped growing and learning/price reduction slowed too. When the price of computers dropped, we paid the same for more powerful computers and more people decided to buy computers because the computers were now more useful. When compuers got powerful enough that we started paying less per computer, we still bought more computers in the form of ipods, VR goggles and smart toilets. More demand, more production, more learning, lower price...question: If the product is cheaper, will you spend more or less in total? If the answer is "yes," rinse and repeat until the anser is no. |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
When people learned how to use coal more efficiently in 19th century England, that didn't result in less coal being used. It meant that it became economical to do more things with coal, and overall coal consumption increased.