[dr_lew]

No, that's a different law. This is the law of large numbers. The law of large numbers says that to double the size of a business that is doing $100 you in $1 widgets only have to sell 100 more, but to double the size of a $10,000 business selling $1 widgets, you have to sell 10,000 widgets, a much harder proposition.

This seems to me ill posed.

It seems to me the proper question is the marginal return on investment. The law of diminishing returns says that it costs more to sell ONE more widget per day, say, if your selling 10,000 per day, than if your selling 100 per day.

[dr_lew]

Here's the Investopedia definition of The Law Of Large Numbers, pretty much along the lines of what you said. It's a different context than diminishing returns, but I think it rests on the same foundation. That is, there is always a limit to growth.

[Swordmaker]

It seems to me the proper question is the marginal return on investment. The law of diminishing returns says that it costs more to sell ONE more widget per day, say, if your selling 10,000 per day, than if your selling 100 per day.

No, you've got it backwards. Cost of sales per widget on 1 widget when you are selling 10,000 is probably a lot less than if you are selling only 100. That is economy of scale. Overhead for operations can remain the same. . . as the number of widgets increases, thereby the cost for overhead per widget goes down.

[Swordmaker]

It seems to me the proper question is the marginal return on investment. The law of diminishing returns says that it costs more to sell ONE more widget per day, say, if your selling 10,000 per day, than if your selling 100 per day.

The cost to DOUBLE sales is far more expensive when you are selling 10,000 widgets, than if you are selling 100 widgets, not to just sell one more widget. There is where you are making your error. trust me.