Point of diminishing returns

Rar1 -
Is it a Federal Law? Does it apply in all 50 States?
My thoughts on the meaning correspond with your explanation but my eloquence certainly doesn't.
It still seems as vague as Drubin's version, however, because that utility thing is utterly subjective, is it not? I mean it seems to be a criterium that we cannot quantify. The point of diminishing returns is not on a map or a curve anywhere. It's like Pirsig's "quality". We all feel we know what it is until we try to define it.

if the value in use equals the value in exchange, there is no point of diminishing returns.

as price increases, there is some point when the value in exchange exceeds the value in use.

another words, someone will continue to pay more and more for a component until he/she perceives that a component is overpriced.

there is no absolute number. for some a $2000 preamp is the point of diminishing returns, while for others it may be $5000. in any case, it is subjective.

for the mathematicians out there when the rate of change of value with respect to the rate of change of price begins to decrease, the point of diminishing returns is reached.

there is no absolute answer.

also, someone may be willing to upgrade , paying 50 % more in price to get a 10 % improvement, because it is worth it to that person.

Some years ago, I saw a graph on the relationship of dollars spent to sonic improvement in speakers. Every dollar spent yielded a straight vertical improvement in sound, up to $1200.00, where the graph started to curve, showing less and less sonic improvement per dollar spent. You still got improvement, just less and less per dollar.

When you wife says "If were ever get a divorce, I'm keeping this stuff" that is the point of diminishing returns.

when your divorce attorney asks to see your financial statements <(:{