There's a new 3Blue1Brown video hinting in the same direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlYgs6v2YfU

This.

The full set of constraints (monopoly, durability, constant MC, timelessness) can hardly ever be fulfilled. So it is not falsifiable by empirical data.

But nobody has questioned the logic conjecture itself here, even the article doesn't try. It seems pretty plausible, doesn't it?

I agree it does seem pretty plausible as some kind of iterated / timeless theory divorced from reality, but especially the assumption that time is irrelevant to the buyer seems completely fanciful. I am usually all for theories that make idealized assumptions and think there's merit to approximations, but this is so egregious--there will never be any market or situation that is anywhere close; and the theory completely breaks down if the assumptions aren't utterly fulfilled. That makes it not even of academic interest, it's completely useless even as a theory.

I disagree. Imho, the problem of this simple model is to find a situation in reality which is close enough to fulfill the constraints.

E.g., it is implied that consumers can postpone their purchase longer than the monopolist is willing to realize the profit. Is it the case here?

Or is there actually a game so durable that is not losing its appeal over time?

And is there a game which can be considered a monopoly (as an activity for spending free time)?

All of these points have to be fulfilled, none of them is, i.e., the conjecture simply doesn't apply.

Yeah I guess it's fine to demand the situation actually conform to the assumptions of the theory, but these assumptions are so extreme they have literally never held for any situation, and they never will.

It is a very unrealistic and simple model. The question remains, however, what is meant by the

> quite general conditions [under which] the logic goes through.

This seems pretty contradictory. There is no hint at which of the constraints is edited to fit better to reality.

Some of the papers are linked. These papers, decades old, helpfully even show cases where the result does not hold.

Kind of. The whole setup is pretty improbable.

There is durable good which means that consumers will only buy once (pharma doesn't seem to fit here).

And there is the monopolist. So there shouldn't be any outside options, as the last paragraph claims in the OP.

And the marginal costs seem to be constant. Which is only the case for things like data or software. For most goods, however, one needs to invest in production facilities to increase output for a bigger number of goods. In this case the marginal costs will increase as well and so it would make sense to first sell a lower number of goods for a higher price.

Somehow, it doesn't quite add up for me, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It reminds me of the unexpected hanging paradox.

This. With this much income you should qualify for a Blue Card. The 27 months start when you are eligible, not when you are actually holding the Blue Card. A friend of mine (w/ Blue Card) got permanent citizenship in Germany after the 3 years and was not asked/tested for any language skills. As long as you speak a little German to follow the process it is pretty easy.

Fascinating animation. But there is one thing I don't understand. What is the purpose of the left axle gear (green)? It is not fixed to the axle because it rotates in the same direction in both modes. Wouldn't is be more efficient to connect the wind-up gear directly to the right axle gear (blue) and through pushing to the left spring gear (red)?

I think it is for this reason that Switzerland has a fixed budget for their railway construction. And it seems to pay off, Swiss railway is exceptional.

With a small country, stable government, and national level funding, that's perfectly feasible. I wish that would work in the US, but we have hundreds of transit agencies that do capital projects.

Each of those hundreds of transit agencies are small, but many of them cover populations similar to Switzerland. Some of them cover much larger populations. They should be able to do what so soon as doing entirely within their little agency and yet they are not.

Has nothing to do with size, see Japan and China.

What does it have to do with then?

My understanding japan has a surprisingly private train system, and China fits the model of "works when it's constantly expanding"

Japan is mostly using exactly the model I suggested.

Really nice clock.

One nitpick on the day/night line: This is strongly dependent on the latitude, i.e. it kind of collides with your notion of the world clock. Maybe you boldface the label for the city to which it is referring.