Is it really wise to equate "less and less costly" with "less and less valuable"? The labor, perhaps. But the outputs?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Saying that the cost of purchasing a unit of x drops when the cost of producing a unit of x drops is uninteresting. It just seems to me that you're shoehorning in some confusion (about marginal vs. total value, maybe?) in order to say something that sounds more interesting.
But there's something else, I think? A country that produces 10,000,000 light bulbs generates more value than a country that produces 10 light bulbs, even if the sale price for each bundle were somehow equivalent. People use light bulbs *to do things they want to do.*
-
-
If light bulbs were in very limited supply & thus extremely costly, you'd likely only see them used by people who had extremely valuable things to do at night. By even a colloquial definition, the marginal value of a light bulb would be much higher... in a much poorer world.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.