>There is no such thing as an overpriced item in a free market as long as the quantity that Apple can make in a given time period matches the quantity people are willing to buy.
That's the market perspective, but there's a value perspective as well. For example, my kid loves blind bags (no more youtube I think...) These companies want to sell him $0.05 plastic dolls for $5 and they prey on his gambling response to do so. These things are not worth anywhere near $5 except from the perspective that commercials can make my kid want them.
That's the market perspective, but there's a value perspective as well.
Entire libraries have been written about and many, many careers have been based upon the notion of "the value of something." It's actually a very, very complex idea. The minuscule mass-energy of the electrons and photons oscillating in various wires and fiber optic cables to bring these words to you have virtually zero market value as individual particles. However, the same quantity of mass-energy could just as well be worth $1000 or $10000 as a different arrangement of mass-energy forming a digital transfer of money. (Not blockchain, as that's a bit heavyweight, but one of many different forms of value transfer.)
"Why are things worth what they're worth?" is the same order of complexity as "Why do things fall?" Your layman's dismissal of value is something like a medieval peasant dismissing the question of why an apple falls from a tree as an idiot's question. It's not. It's Issac Newton's question. If you ask such a question and you look underneath the surface, there's an entire world of complexity unto itself there.
>"Why are things worth what they're worth?" is the same order of complexity as "Why do things fall?" Your layman's dismissal of value is something like a medieval peasant dismissing the question of why an apple falls from a tree as an idiot's question.
I don't think anything you just said is relevant to what I said here. All that I said is that there is a notion of value which is not simply "what the market will bear". Value means different things to different people at different times. As you said; it's complex.
There are items with inherent value, like gold. It's value is inherent because of how we use it (electronics, jewelry), but that doesn't change the fact that there is real value in gold. That's not the same as someone wanting to make a fashion statement, and I think your electron comparison is so simplistic and absurd as to not be useful in any way. Yes, everything in the universe is comprised of the fundamental building blocks of matter. Great insight here, how about we discuss this in a practical way?
There are items with inherent value, like gold. It's value is inherent because of how we use it (electronics, jewelry), but that doesn't change the fact that there is real value in gold.
Context. There are contexts where even gold has greatly reduced value. If you're on a sinking ditched airplane in rough seas, are you really going to try and stash that 1kg bar of gold bullion on your person? In that context, it arguably has quite a bit of negative value. I'd account the "getting you dead" property as conferring negative value.
In the same context, liter of salt water is worthless. In a different context, it would be worth many times what the gold would be worth.
If you want to save something in a life threatening situation, that's a fairly reasonable choice.
I wasn't talking about a life threatening situation. I was talking about a "life threatened by not being able to float well enough to breathe" situation combined with a "life threatened by not getting out of a sinking thing fast enough" situation.
Also if you think it's a reasonable choice, and the next person thinks it's a crazy choice, that supports my point instead of contradicting it. (And yes, I planned that out!)
Bothering to retrieve something so dense and heavy during a chaotic situation where being buoyant enough is a life or death issue -- it's worth a lot of money, but is it worth your life? If you're a very confident, strong swimmer, then maybe that's a rational choice. If you're certain that there's going to be rescue in just a few minutes, then maybe that's a rational choice. If the time and effort it takes to retrieve the thing isn't going to cost you your life by losing you a place dry and out of freezing water, then maybe that's a rational choice. What if all of those above knobs are cranked over to the most unfavorable position?
This is precisely my point: The value of something is highly contextual. The context might well be different for each individual at different times.
There are items with inherent value, like gold. It's value is inherent because
Besides electronics, historically the only reasons gold has been valuable was that there was limited quantity and people could trade it for needed goods and services and that people could make jewelry from it. But if tomorrow a large gold deposit was found doubling the amount of supply or people stopped accepting gold in exchange for goods, it wouldn't be as valuable. The price of gold doesnt reflect its utilitarian value.
In the aggregate, "the value perspective", is how many people value the product enough to pay Apple's asking price. If the value perspective isn't enough to sell the number of phones Apple can make, then Apple would lower the price.
Or increase ad spend and arrange for PR-managed celebtrity sponsorships as “social proof.” Or repackage most of the tech in a new version with some allegedly extra premium feature, like a useable battery life. Or release some other products and rely on a halo effect.
The point being that perceptions of practical utility, Veblen value, and other price-defining factors are all malleable and brand-dependent, and essentially about social psychology, not some mythical “objective” market value.
The market value is not "mythical" and it is "objective". Everything you stated - advertising,Veblen value, and other "malleable" attributes are things that increase its value in the eyes of the target market.
Just because you may not find a value in a pair of $200 Jordan's doesn't mean that it's not the value that the market has placed on them. How the company influenced that value is irrelevant. The fact that someone spent $200 on a pair of shoes when they weren't under duress to do so, by definition means they valued those Jordan's at $200.
That's the market perspective, but there's a value perspective as well. For example, my kid loves blind bags (no more youtube I think...) These companies want to sell him $0.05 plastic dolls for $5 and they prey on his gambling response to do so. These things are not worth anywhere near $5 except from the perspective that commercials can make my kid want them.