I can’t be bothered trying to explain it anymore so maybe ai can: What he’s missing is the difference between market price/liquidity and intrinsic or situational value. He’s conflating “value” with “tradable commodity on a market.” A few points: 1. Value isn’t only economic. Water has enormous value in survival terms, even if there’s no one to sell it to you personally. If you’re stranded without water, its worth is infinite relative to your life; the market is irrelevant. Bitcoin and gold may have a price, but that price means nothing if they can’t sustain you physically or psychologically in the moment. 2. Liquidity ≠ inherent value. Just because something is hard to trade or lacks a market doesn’t make it valueless. Scarcity in a market context doesn’t generate intrinsic worth; it just allows pricing to happen. 3. Situational vs absolute value. He’s dismissing water because he’s imagining a situation where he can’t sell it. But value is highly context-dependent — to a thirsty human, water’s value is immediate and undeniable, regardless of markets. Scarcity alone does not create value; need does. 4. Human perception and utility matter. Value is tied to utility and desire, not just scarcity. Water’s utility is life-sustaining; Bitcoin’s is trust, speculation, or medium of exchange. He’s blind to the distinction between “can I sell this” and “can I survive without it.” In short: he’s thinking like a trader, not a human being. Scarcity alone doesn’t produce value; utility, desire, and consequences do.