You cannot seriously bandy about the concepts of supply, demand, and market (equilibrium) price, concepts which form parts of basic economic theory, and then throw out the standard economic definition of value.
> perhaps you need a new textbook.
That clause is utterly devoid of any logical content.
Your thought experiment demonstrates nothing except the basic concept of "people will buy whatever is cheapest." Let's say fresh air is worth $1 million to me. If you were charging $10, I would not pay because I can get it for free and gain a "consumer surplus" of $1 million. That does not change the fact that I would be willing to pay $1 million if air were a scarce resource.
"You cannot seriously bandy about the concepts of supply, demand, and market (equilibrium) price, concepts which form parts of basic economic theory, and then throw out the standard economic definition of value."
Your claim that value is nothing more than "demand" is not universally accepted among economists. I did not throw out any definitions; all I did was point out that value is affected by both supply and demand, which is a straightforward neoclassical interpretation.
Firstly, that eHow article you cite is hardly reputable, and it basically contradicts itself. It states that in neoclassical economics, value is a function of supply AND demand, yet it goes on to state that value = utility. That value=utility argument is what is I am trying to say. Utility has nothing to do with supply.
The other article only prove my point. Neoclassical economics is the "mainstream," "standard" economic theory, for both conservative and liberal economists alike. It mentions classical economics only for the sake of historical context (it was prevalent in the 19th century but is now outdated).
You don't even properly state my argument. I never said value = demand. I said value is what makes up demand. That is an important distinction, and it is one that makes sense (if you don't value something, you don't demand it. If you value something, you do demand it.)
Lastly, you ignored my response to your thought experiment.
> perhaps you need a new textbook.
That clause is utterly devoid of any logical content.
Your thought experiment demonstrates nothing except the basic concept of "people will buy whatever is cheapest." Let's say fresh air is worth $1 million to me. If you were charging $10, I would not pay because I can get it for free and gain a "consumer surplus" of $1 million. That does not change the fact that I would be willing to pay $1 million if air were a scarce resource.