|
Value....The only meaningful economic definition of value is the following - How much will somebody pay for something, i.e., the price. Not fair, not just. People pay because they want something. Once again, why is not important in an economic sense, how much is all that counts.
Now having said that, every purchase falls first into the concept - make or buy. If I can make it, then which either costs less, or is better quality? I pick accordingly. If I can't make it, then I'm limited to what I can buy, and hopefully am able to choose between competing providers, using the same criteria.
When the cost of producing an item is less that what the market (people) will pay, items are produced. When the cost of producing an item exceeds the price the market will pay, the item won't get produced. (There are special, short-term cases to the contrary, but I'm deliberately leaving those to the side.)
Now recently, (last 40 years), certain parts of the economy have been disrupted by true automation, creating a near-infinite supply of certain products. Therefore, the market price of those items have collapsed. The corollary to that is that no product will be produced. The producers will quit producing and/or go bankrupt. This will occur to any portion of the economy facing true automation.
Let me give you an hypothetical example. What would happen agribusiness if somebody invented a matter replicator, a la Star Trek (Next Generation)? Who would breed new plants? Who would make new vintages of wine? Answer, nobody, at least for profit. (Amateurs will still play around...) Would that be a reason to smash all the matter transmitters? Would the makers of a recent vintage of wine have the right to prevent replication of the vintage in order to protect the economic value of making a new vintage? These are the same discussion we're having here. It's just that this is the cutting edge of the problem....
|