I agree there is some validity in your reply. But it is a largely subjective thing and depends on the person. And meanwhile the teacups are still teacups that hold the same amount of tea just as solidly.

A person such as myself recognises a thing for its beauty and usefulness. I don't care how cheap it was or how mass-produced.

I'd like to cite an example. I have 2 Bechstein model 5 (= model 10) pianos. The market price of these is relatively low because ignorant people (= the vast majority) assume that non-overstrung pianos are inferior. But I myself just recognised outstanding, brilliantly-designed pianos for what they were - it is so rare to find pianos that have good uniform tone etc., let alone with a smaller size too. Only later via the internet did I learn that expert others with the required discernment of quality recognise these as some of the best pianos ever made (and in my experience there are far more Bechstein 5s/10s than any other model of any make, a reflection of that fact). Personally I don't give a fig that the ignorant assume these to be less valuable, more fool them. By the way, quality pianos have been in great part mass-produced for the past 150 years, big deal. The higher the quality the masser the production (because huge research and expertise is involved)!

Good observations. I've thought about a related concept in regards to digital reproduction of art.

In the recent past the (audio) quality of recorded music would decline over time, and there was little that could be done about it. Now with digital storage, it can be copied and what's more, distributed around the world in an identical state. Does it lose value through this, or gain it?

As a musician, I'm socially dissuaded from investing all my time in songwriting/performing, because so much music is available due to modern distribution channels (internet/tv music channels/radio). I think my inclination to write/perform comes - to a degree - from the wish to acquire social capital. But since there's now a global market to compete with, I'm forced more into the (more detrimental) aquisition of financial capital instead.

I have often thought how much difference it would make to social outcomes of musicians if music could not be recorded or amplified. Performance would be limited to small groups. The same applies to many art forms.

The market economy is only relevant to the price, not to the differing values it has to different people. The market makes not the slightest difference to the sound etc of my piano. Or the elegance of a fine design. The high prices of Rolex watches do not make them any less ugly, let alone more attractive than my £20 highly-accurate and reliable Lorus which is actually elegant unlike any Rolex I've seen.

I am reminded of the bidders one encounters on ebay, whom I call loonies. They have no concept of how much it is worth to themselves. For instance I happen to want a second widget w to go with my present widget w, which works well with my already-installed system. So a w is worth twice for me what it is for others. But when the looney sees that I bid 80 for it he then "reasons" that it must be worth at least 85 for him. And so on ad idioticum to his """winning""" the auction at whatever idiotic cost it takes. There's a way of beating these loonies but that's a trade secret not to be given away here.

Unfortunately most of the loonies bidding on oil futures are working to a presumption that the price is "high" at present and will come down even in the longterm.