I don’t think there’s a strong economic argument against multiple Time-Turners—I can think of a number of reasons why the demand for additional loops might run into diminishing returns pretty quickly. Starting with self-consistency problems—if the simplest solution to a factoring problem that leverages Time-Turning is “DO NOT MESS WITH TIME”, then it wouldn’t surprise me too much if the simplest self-consistent solution to more complicated and dangerous tasks that involve self-reference is a mysterious death or incapacity on the first iteration. This would be noticed, and Time-Turner abuse would be avoided. Then there’s jet lag, synchronization issues, and any number of other things. More than one Time-Turner would definitely be useful (and desired), but the twenty-fifth wouldn’t be anywhere close to as useful as the first.
That being said, I think you present pretty solid behavioral reasons why we can probably assume it’s impossible.
I don’t think there’s a strong economic argument against multiple Time-Turners—I can think of a number of reasons why the demand for additional loops might run into diminishing returns pretty quickly. Starting with self-consistency problems—if the simplest solution to a factoring problem that leverages Time-Turning is “DO NOT MESS WITH TIME”, then it wouldn’t surprise me too much if the simplest self-consistent solution to more complicated and dangerous tasks that involve self-reference is a mysterious death or incapacity on the first iteration. This would be noticed, and Time-Turner abuse would be avoided. Then there’s jet lag, synchronization issues, and any number of other things. More than one Time-Turner would definitely be useful (and desired), but the twenty-fifth wouldn’t be anywhere close to as useful as the first.
That being said, I think you present pretty solid behavioral reasons why we can probably assume it’s impossible.