> Yeah, I figured you wouldn't have an actual response.

You asked where it went. The top 1% of earners have nearly doubled their wealth in the last 5 years alone. That's the answer. The fact that your ideology and/or ambition to join them conflicts with it does not, in and of itself, make that not an "actual response."

Money is allegedly finite, at least it is whenever the subject of making society more equitable is raised. If all those people are so much wealthier, and if the economy is indeed a zero sum game, surely you must then acknowledge them having so much more, by necessity, means so many others must have less?

> So I provided multiple examples against your "NEVER" that you immediately shrugged off.

I said "I have never seen this in action" in specific reply to you saying:

> This is a wrongheaded way of looking at it, since in a competitive market, those cost savings will eventually be passed onto the consumer.

And beyond the blatant goal-post shift there that I must remind you, everyone can see, I feel it's appropriate to tear into your video game example because I think that's a lot trickier than you might:

First, the price stability of AAA games is not evidence of benevolent market forces. It’s a result of industry standardization, publisher control, and platform monopolies. Half-Life 2 co-launched Steam in 2004 and retailed for $60–$70, a price which stuck around for a couple of decades or so, and that’s before you factor in DLCs, deluxe editions, season passes, and microtransactions. The base price may look flat, but the real cost to access the full experience has ballooned. And unlike the cartridge era, you often don’t even get a physical product—just a license to access a server.

Second, this pricing model predates digital distribution. The idea that games got cheaper because of competition ignores the fact that prices held steady even as production and distribution costs plummeted. The savings from digital delivery, reduced packaging, and outsourced labor didn’t go to the consumer. They went to shareholders and executives. The top five game publishers have posted record profits year after year, even as they lay off staff and squeeze dev teams.

Third, pointing to video games and electronics as proof of market generosity is classic cherry-picking. These are industries uniquely shaped by global supply chains, massive economies of scale, and digital platforms that eliminate physical overhead. That’s not how groceries, rent, healthcare, or education work. In those sectors, prices have risen relentlessly while wages stagnate. If competitive markets reliably passed savings to consumers, we’d see it across the board, or hell, even just sometimes. Not just in industries that benefit from digital arbitrage and monopolistic control.

So no, video games didn’t "get cheaper" in any meaningful way, not really. They got more extractive, more fragmented, and more dependent on psychological monetization models.