[pfdietz]

If books were precious physical objects of great value, why is that not reflected in their prices? Used books are usually worthless.

And if their inherent value was so great, regardless of supply or use, wouldn't we be able to churn out infinite value by just printing enormous nunbers of copies and storing them?

This absurd consequence shows the outrage here is without rational foundation. It's feelings run amok. Feels are not a good way to think, people.

[tgv]

If air is so valuable to you, why don't you pay premium for it? Not that it's comparable to books, but it has the same presupposition as your question.

[Legend2440]

Because air is extremely common and not scarce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value

Similarly, wholesale used books are cheap because they are extremely common and not scarce.

[bighi]

This was a very nonsensical response. It's not analogous to the argument being made, nor it add any value to the conversation.

[qsera]

They are cheap because they are old, and people are so stupid that they think if something is old, it should be worthless.

[pfdietz]

When your justification for your idea is that everyone else is stupid, maybe you need to reevaluate who is being stupid.

[qsera]

I didn't say everyone else is stupid. I said (or meant) consumers show largely/collectively stupid behavior that I described.

[pfdietz]

Just most people. Your quibble doesn't save you.

Why should anyone take your personal idiosyncratic definition of value seriously, especially when it leads to absurd consequences? The simplest explanation here is that you have just not expended the effort to think things through.

[H4cks0r1337]

Or maybe just not. Galileo comes to mind.

[pfdietz]

If someone had posted "OMG Google is using up air" I'd have been equally contemptuous.

I'm kind of surprised we aren't hearing that as an argument against burning fossil fuels, actually.

[qsera]

>why is that not reflected in their prices?

Because the consumers are stupid and think being "new" is worth a lot more, for some reason, when it comes to art/literature/movies. So they are willing to pay more for new stuff that could be mediocre.

I would really pay 10 times the price of some old books, but consumer demand is nearly zero because they are old, so they have gone out of print...

[bighi]

These books ARE new. New-ish.

They are all books from 2020 and 2021.

[michaelmrose]

If we value things according to their monetary value we must conclude that Elon musk is more valuable than every teacher in Americas labor for the next decade. Economic value is oft divorced entirely from any notion of real value.

What you are describing derisively as "feels" is actually nuance the very essence of intelligence is not reducing complexity to tapioca.

Destroying the last copy of a rare book reduces the sum total of human knowledge even if its not one already of note.

Historically current thinking isn't the best and most accurate judgement of value. We cherish many works that were not notable upon publication or even in the author's lifetime.

Previously the works were distributed and hard to lose all at once now they are possibly inaccurately scanned and even that slightly lossy data may disappear all at once in a wave bankruptcy especially if the economy crashes again as seems to happen every 10 to 20 years.

I suggest you ruminate instead of patting yourself on the back

[pfdietz]

Equating people to inanimate objects is a remarkable argument. How about we reject that out of hand.

[michaelmrose]

It's not. It's an excellent example that economic value!= value.

Your facile dodge isn't an argument and suggests you lack one.