u/SoftBeing_

The theory that states that in a free market prices will tend to marginal cost is just another "economic abstraction" that doesnt help in anything and doesnt explain anything, and its framed in a confuse way because it wants to be seen as more profound than it is and to gatekeep people from it.

First, the "cost of producing another unit" means nothing. Does it assume the cost of producing another unit will be always the same? because the cost of producing x + 1 is one, x + 2 maybe very diferent, and certainly there is a quantity y where the cost will be very diferent than the cost of x + 1 and x + 2 quantities. So which one do you pick for a price?

But even if you assume the cost will remain the same, there is the cost of initial capital investment, in machinery and such, that is not accounted in the "cost of producing another unit". for example the cost of the machines that produce shirts is c, and the cost of producing x shirts is z, the cost of producing x + 1 will be very little, lets say 1. but if you place your price at lets say 2 so you supposed get profit, but what happens in reality is that you will not pay for the initial capital investment, so you will lose money and get bankrupt if you sell for little more than the marginal cost, imagine selling for the marginal cost...

But defensors can say that the cost of adding 1 unit of shirts will be accounting the depreciation of the initial capital, so selling for the marginal cost will not make the producer lose money. but if you say that, what you are essentially saying is that the price will be equal the cost of producing the thing, that is not explained by the marginal cost itself. marginal cost is not helping in anything here. and the theory of how costs are made must explain how the capitalist will make profit of it. both the cost producer and the shirt producer, because there is none of profits in this model.

and if you take into account that you cant sell everything for whatever price you put is another error of the theory. if you increase the unit by one maybe there is no consumers demanding it, so it will not make sense to produce more, and the price will remain in whatever price you put right now, with profits and such.

*i mean marginal utility is false, not law of dimishing returns. my bad.

We do not assign value in inverse proportion to the quantity of something we possess. Either we have what we want and desire no more, or we lack it and want exactly the necessary amount. As for economic value, it does not change if we find no personal use for the item, since we can always sell it to third parties.

if i have a car without wheels, i want 4 wheels. if i have more than 4 wheels i dont find use for them. simply as that. the next wheel would have a much less value than the the first 4 ones, if you want to use those terms. and it wouldnt keep decreasing in value proportionally. there is a clear gap in the 4 ones and the rest.

and i can always sell the fifth or sixth wheel for the exact same price i bought the first 4 wheels. so the economically value, if you want to use those terms, is the same, it didnt decrease with the quantity.

im not a big fan of layers, i build a 6x7 dactyl manuform (5 rows 7 cols and thumb cluster witht 6 keys and 2 extra keys in the middle) and i found it to be a really good amount of keys, the layout fit qwerty and the the arrow keys and home/end, etc.

but i was thinking that an ideal keyboard would be something like that but with a mouse input, as i liked so much the trackpoint in thinkpad keyboards, but i think trackpoints arent that usual i dont know why, but i think a track ball would fill the gap.

so is there some split keyboard with a lot of keys and trackball?