Law of diminishing marginal utility

>>1805664
demand curves are just representation and not laws. You can find stupid examples of where its '''technically'' not true, but it its true in 99.9% of cases that matter. What if USA was suddenly fludded with 100 million barrels of oil that fell from the sky in cans, they would have less utility than all the oil already in use.

>>1805664
how is two people eating ice cream the same thing as one person eating ice cream?
the fact that your pinko friend had to move the goalpost in order to invalidate diminishing marginal utility should tell you that he's a moron.

>>1805664
Why stop at two cones? Would 60 cones of ice cream for you and your friend have the same utility as 2 cones?

The answer is clearly no.

>>1805664
Buying two shoes is better than buying one.

It does not 'violate' the law, it just shows that it describes a general relationship.

>>1806594
This may be true, but it shows that it's possible that marginal returns are at least non mobotonic at least somewhere

>>1806850
Well, suppose buying 1 shoe gives 10 utils. It's not exactly useful since it's just a single shoe, but maybe you could use it to replace another broken shoe you have.

However, the second pair you consume gives you a marginal utility of 50 since you now have a complete set of shoes that you can use for running, hiking, etc.

Doesn't this demonstrate that marginal utility increases?

>>1805664
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility happens at a certain point, not straight away, 2 chocolate bars are better than 1 and 3 is better than 2, but 500 is not better than 2 in terms of utility/pleasure. It starts to decline after a certain point

>>1805664
Your friend isn't wrong, you are wrong. The 'law' isn't a hard and fast law, it's a general rule. Read 'The Elusive Quest for Growth if you want some really good examples of increasing marginal returns