this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
486 points (98.8% liked)
Political Memes
1986 readers
771 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Lower prices incentivize consumption though, right? It definitely hurts profits, but people buy lots more pointless shit if they can afford it.
Static lower prices might, but deflation does not. If prices will be lower tomorrow or next week, it's wiser to hold on to your money and buy later.
Sounds good in theory, but I don’t think that holds up in practice. For example, computers getting more affordable and powerful year by year didn’t stop people from buying them.
If the price is lower than the opportunity cost of NOT having it, people will buy it now, even if the product will be priced better next year.
It absolutely delay people buying. If you held out for 6 more months, you'd get a substantially faster computer. Thats the second variable you're introducing with this example. If your current computer was "fast enough" you'd wait, and people did.
This is my problem with economics. You're talking about theory and practice as if they're the same thing. All consumers do not make perfectly rational choices. Hell, most don't. This kind of theory only explains how rich people want you to think things work. It's not how things work in the real world.
Way back when, I used to sell computers and computer parts at retail. I assure you this was a regular conversation topic. "When is the Voodoo 4 graphics card coming out? 4 months? Okay I won't buy the older Voodoo 3 now because I can make do with my Nvidia TNT2 until then."
No they don't, nor or do they need to if you're taking a macro view.
Are you saying:
I disagree with the former, but I agree with you on the latter. None of that invalidates micro or macro economic theory.
Many rich people get rich because this works. They also play dirty tricks to create the situations, but then again in those situations the theory works.
I'll be the first to say economic theory is far from perfect and the deeper you go, the more complex, and potentially less reliable, it gets, but the basics are pretty sound.
An upgrade for a non-essential item you already own might prompt some of these considerations from some people. The decision to buy that item in the first place usually won't, especially when you're talking about essential items like groceries and housing, which is what the article in the OP is referring to.
That describes most of my life, under Moore's Law.
I handled it in the traditional way: I bought what I wanted, and then I immediately cussed about my shitty timing to my friends the next day.