This has been mentioned in other comments, but I’m concerned that the author is missing the problem. The misuse of the term “value” is not a minor thing, and in fact invalidated the entire article (the article argues that perfect competition is bad but for various reasons it doesn’t exist; this is completely wrong, perfect competition is good and would be better than the status quo). You’re right that economists sometimes use value in a specific way and your usage would be valid in that context, but that’s not how you’re using the word in this article. I think the point where this article goes from confusing to explicitly wrong is here:
No matter how cheap prices of goods and quantities available might get, if you have zero surplus of any kind to spend on them, it doesn’t do you any good.
Before this you were very specific to use economic terms, but here you’re suddenly using “surplus” to mean “everything of value”. This equivocation is all over the post but becomes unmistakable here.
I think a big part of the problem is focusing on weird industries like VC funded redistribution schemes like Uber instead of real businesses. Look at farms, manufacturing, etc. - businesses that are trying to make a profit.
If I open the world’s first apple orchard in a world of orange orchards, I can charge monopoly prices, earning a surplus on my sales, and use that money to buy more stuff than people who grow oranges. If suddenly the seeds go out and anyone could grow apples, in this articles terms, we would suddenly have closer-to-perfect competition and Moloch would destroy all “value”.. leading to more apples being produced, more affordable food variety, and a decrease in work/income inequality.
We don’t need to explain how competition isn’t perfect and actually things are fine because roving barbarians burn down random orchards every year. Periodically destroying orchards is just bad and producing things more fairly is good.
I’m guessing the counter-point would be that in high-capital businesses like manufacturing, perfect competition destroys the economic surplus you need to build or maintain factories, but this is misusing terms in a different way. The cost of the factory isn’t surplus and if your competitors are selling below cost, the problem is irrational competitors, not the fact that there’s competition.
This has been mentioned in other comments, but I’m concerned that the author is missing the problem. The misuse of the term “value” is not a minor thing, and in fact invalidated the entire article (the article argues that perfect competition is bad but for various reasons it doesn’t exist; this is completely wrong, perfect competition is good and would be better than the status quo). You’re right that economists sometimes use value in a specific way and your usage would be valid in that context, but that’s not how you’re using the word in this article. I think the point where this article goes from confusing to explicitly wrong is here:
Before this you were very specific to use economic terms, but here you’re suddenly using “surplus” to mean “everything of value”. This equivocation is all over the post but becomes unmistakable here.
I think a big part of the problem is focusing on weird industries like VC funded redistribution schemes like Uber instead of real businesses. Look at farms, manufacturing, etc. - businesses that are trying to make a profit.
If I open the world’s first apple orchard in a world of orange orchards, I can charge monopoly prices, earning a surplus on my sales, and use that money to buy more stuff than people who grow oranges. If suddenly the seeds go out and anyone could grow apples, in this articles terms, we would suddenly have closer-to-perfect competition and Moloch would destroy all “value”.. leading to more apples being produced, more affordable food variety, and a decrease in work/income inequality.
We don’t need to explain how competition isn’t perfect and actually things are fine because roving barbarians burn down random orchards every year. Periodically destroying orchards is just bad and producing things more fairly is good.
I’m guessing the counter-point would be that in high-capital businesses like manufacturing, perfect competition destroys the economic surplus you need to build or maintain factories, but this is misusing terms in a different way. The cost of the factory isn’t surplus and if your competitors are selling below cost, the problem is irrational competitors, not the fact that there’s competition.