In many cases the “limits to production” and “genuine scarcity” are functionally meaningless though, and surely have no measurable effect on the market price of the item. A cheap screen-printed t-shirt could be $7 if it’s printed with one design, and $100 if it’s printed with another design. It’s completely silly to point to “limits to production” and “genuine scarcity” as an explanation for this.
A more apt explanation for this is Baudrillard's conception of sign value. (Veblen initially thought out parts of it through the concept of Veblen goods, but it was Baudrillard who took this idea to the extreme). The value is not created by any utility or scarcity, but is derived by the system of signs (prestige, class symbol, brand) created in consumerist societies. This system of signs is often self-reinforcing, since sign values themselves are "in association" with other sign values, rather than having cause-and-effect chains and physical processes. And it's "free-floating" just like the current monetary system of floating currencies are.
I don't think anybody is trying to explain the price difference between a $7 shirt and a $100 shirt as being the result of one having a larger supply than the other.
That’s the most charitable interpretation I can make of the original comment:
> "designer clothes, luxury watches, and fancy cars" all have understandable limits to production and have genuine scarcity (even if that scarcity is strictly controlled).
The entire thread is about buying and selling NFTs, so I think it’s fair to infer that we’re all talking about the merits of NFTs having a non-zero price.
Yes, and their point was in the context of a thread debating the merits of NFTs having non-zero price. The comment was claiming that the supposed "genuine scarcity" justifies the buying and selling of those physical goods.
The claim was that they would rather not buy anything that is being made scarce artificially, which is a perfectly reasonable position. You don't have to agree with this principle. But, again, this is bears no relationship to the question of why a t-shirt is worth $10 and another t-shirt is worth $5.
