Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
83% Positive
Analyzed from 680 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#paradox#jevons#more#resource#spend#demand#total#increase#coal#cost
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 680 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (13 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I would argue that is not Jevons paradox but standard supply and demand (and this "reverse Jevons paradox" too). Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use (instead of a decrease as a first order analysis would suggest).
I think these are the same, because efficiency is value over cost. In the original formulation of the paradox, a more efficient steam engine lead to a rise in coal consumption. You can look at this as a "money buys coal, coal drives locomotion" system, where the latter part was improved. Modulo practical issues with coal (transport, storage, etc), dropping the price of coal would (probably?) lead to the same effect, since the end result is that locomotion per money is increased. For an outside observer, it doesn't matter if you get more coal per money or more locomotion per coal.
> standard supply and demand
Standard supply and demand doesn't say anything about increase of spend. If food prices drop, I'm not going to buy more food. I might buy better food for the same budget, but there's no reason why my total food spend should increase.
Kinda yes. How do you derive total spend from supply-demand curves? Multiply price and quantity at an intersection point. Likewise, you can predict total spend by multiplying p and q on the demand curve.
The difference in total spend is difference between these areas. For the total spend to increase with a drop in price, the the demand must rise faster.
Jevon's paradox implies that the price equilibrium is at the highly elastic portion of the demand curve.
> Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use
While that's mostly true in practical reality in established economies, that does not strictly have to be the case. On the consumer side, especially in manufacturing, there's very little difference between unit price of a good falling and input unit per output units dropping as both lead to decreased COGS. In both cases, market realities might unlock alternative approaches (the classic being robot replacing Robert), leading to increased demand.
Or the changes might be "smuggled through" in an unrelated changeset that has to go through the red tape anyway.
I remember this theater on things which were suspected to be too expensive with insiffiufficient ROI to implement, except that all the time wasted by multiple people arguing in Jira tickets, sitting in meetings, and writing specifications was likely far more expensive than just building and testing the thing.
For some reason, there seems to be a strong and automatic tendency for older and larger organizations to drift toward petrification through bureaucratization.
Not unlike hiking taxes on the rich, seeing them vote with their feet, and revenue subsequently catering.
But as long as we reward politicians for delivering blame more than results, this political folly will continue.
Until Strein's Law[1] kicks the teeth in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein#Stein's_Law
It leads to an interesting way to think about company and civic health as well. Instead of focussing purely on incentives, one might assume that many are inclined to do good stuff anyway, and then ask: are we lowering the cost of all desired behavior as much as possible? And are we doing it for as many people as possible?