pull down to refresh
Yea, the dude said he's bought "music using dollars". And then in later sentence he mentioned concert.
So that's what I was replying to.
Concerts are scarce economic goods (well, services). No argument there. But that's not what I'm talking about
reply
Do I need to read the article to point out that replying with
to
doesn't make sense? But I see, I think you only wanted to reply to the first part:
I still don't agree with you but it at least makes more sense now