And repairability just means that the industry can move people from manufacturing to service and support.
>There's just a handful of audiophiles that would be replacing their speakers every year
then the carbon footprint is negligible also, which is what this discussion is about, not total sales of high end speakers
but if you were a more flexible thinker, you would have noted that the explanation I gave works at any level of the product stream and it illustrates how economic activity works "at the margin" all the time; the carbon footprint argument I'm explaining against did not take this into account and gave an incorrect picture of the carbon situation.
"at the margin" is a related idea to differentials/derivatives in calculus, with a mix of brownian motion or statistical mechanics. Consider the idea that "the economy is so bad, PhD's are driving taxis". If a university opens up in that town and hires a bunch of PhDs, they wouldn't be driving taxis any more. those jobs would be filled by other people who used to be doing other things, and those jobs would in turn be filled. This is not Reagonomics, it's economics.
Reagonomics doesn’t work because the rich hoard wealth, use leveraged money to keep their hoard rather than it trickling down, and use their hoard to influence policy and the social environment against the working class.
Electronics also don’t trickle down when you toss your old phone in a drawer rather than passing it on. Or when software updates make it unusable after 3 years. Or when parts (battery, screen glass) aren’t replaceable. Or when social cache is attached to new electronics but not older ones.
So the existence of high end audio products that CAN trickle down doesn’t mean they ARE trickling down.
people sell their old cars because their economic value is high and storing them is non-negligible expense-wise also. The economic value of older phones is frequently low, in the drawer they go. People who buy a new latest greatest high end phone every year do not have a drawer with 10 old high end phones in pristine condition in it.
you are engaging in "motivated reasoning", but your motivation is to "plz plz plz find any way that socialism is a good idea, or at least reinforce the populist ideas i have about wealth". Trickle down is a description of an economic thing that happens. You've latched onto those words because it sounds like "a trickle" and that's a bad sounding thing when your goal is taking away Elon Musk's money.
The Reagan years were economically extremely good. Economists are interested in debating how much his tax policies led to growth, how much was putting the oil shock of the 70's behind us, etc. But it's an honest debate. The points you raise point to you spelling his name Ray-gun, a non serious approach to economics.
Elon Musk "hoards his wealth" because his wealth is bound up in shares of his companies. Tesla and SpaceX are valuable because of what the market thinks of their economic activity. You are engaged in a dishonest analysis of the ledger when you go down one side and take Tesla's economic activity as a "given" that's good for people and that's good because people are entitled to that, but then down the other side and say "he's hoarding wealth, economics doesn't work!"
as I pointed out before, I will point out again: none of this helps you to misunderstand what happens wrt the carbon footprint which is what I was talking about.
