[erikerikson]

> Value and scarcity go hand in hand

Not really. The value to a thirsty soul of water in the desert is as high as they value their own life (to some there is little) and have a currency of value to the seller. Still, once thirst is quenched the value to that soul drops nearer to zero.

For an optional good the value only rises to the point that there is excess asset in the inventories of those that would like to add the option.

I would suggest what you are looking for is that some scarcities are shifted by each new technology. Things like the sincere attention of others or more exclusive emotional attachments become relatively more scarce in a goods abundant existence. Earlier, insights on where to apply the tool and to where one should attend become more scarce.

Something you would have to accept if you believe your statement is that you would never value (i.e. need) water again if we could produce far more than we ever could use. Your body's need and use would not cease even if the economics might collapse.

Financializing everything can lead one into foolish conclusions.

[barrell]

I do not think value and scarcity are identical, merely that they go hand in hand. In the desert, I would pay a lot of money for water. In the west, I would never pay for a glass of water, even if it's blistering hot and I'm parched. The requirement is the same, the value only changes due to scarcity.

What you are talking about is needs, which is an entirely different discussion. Value can also be used to discuss needs (how valuable is something to survive), but I think I'm quite clearly using it to describe something different.