But value to whom or what? If the mechanism tends to zero marginal cost, then the value of each unit of output will tend towards zero too, and rapidly once scarcity is no longer a constraint. In the US, some professions are like "guilds"; the value can be marginal (useless output), but the user must pay for a set mechanism price, and guild members are regulated to keep any competition very low.
Once, industries used cost-plus pricing. That changed to estimating pricing for perceived value, decoupling production costs from prices, although the price floor was the marginal cost of production. But as we become ever more post-industrial and service-oriented, who controls the price and the mechanism cost? Today, the aim seems to be to become the monopolist in a niche and to charge monopoly prices, create artificial scarcity, etc. How does that reduce welfare value to the buyers with no choice of purchase?
I look forward to there being a lot more code doing tasks, customized to the user. Code should have a marginal cost close to $0, so that there is no constraint on its supply. [Of course, that may mean that there is no constraint on malware, deepfake blackmail, etc., too. But hopefully there is a net positive benefit for society.]
Bottom line, I think your assertion that we should not confuse mechanism with value has been around forever, and understood by canny operators, and now has become the default of market-driven, vs production-driven, companies.
But value to whom or what? If the mechanism tends to zero marginal cost, then the value of each unit of output will tend towards zero too, and rapidly once scarcity is no longer a constraint. In the US, some professions are like "guilds"; the value can be marginal (useless output), but the user must pay for a set mechanism price, and guild members are regulated to keep any competition very low.
Once, industries used cost-plus pricing. That changed to estimating pricing for perceived value, decoupling production costs from prices, although the price floor was the marginal cost of production. But as we become ever more post-industrial and service-oriented, who controls the price and the mechanism cost? Today, the aim seems to be to become the monopolist in a niche and to charge monopoly prices, create artificial scarcity, etc. How does that reduce welfare value to the buyers with no choice of purchase?
I look forward to there being a lot more code doing tasks, customized to the user. Code should have a marginal cost close to $0, so that there is no constraint on its supply. [Of course, that may mean that there is no constraint on malware, deepfake blackmail, etc., too. But hopefully there is a net positive benefit for society.]
Bottom line, I think your assertion that we should not confuse mechanism with value has been around forever, and understood by canny operators, and now has become the default of market-driven, vs production-driven, companies.