When a previously scarce input becomes abundant, value moves along the chain only to a newly scarce input that some participant can exclude others from using. Scarcity is necessary; excludable control is what makes it sufficient, and Shapiro keeps that condition at both steps of his own derivation: "(and consequently who controls the scarce resource(s) changes)". Where no participant can corner the newly scarce input, the chain does not relocate its profit: it approaches the price-taking case everywhere and the value accrues to buyers rather than to any position in the chain. Whether an excludable holder exists is an empirical question at every application, which is what lets this claim fail.

Evidence 2 passages

groundsUntitled source
The idea that value ows toward scarce resources is a foundational concept in economics. Somewhere in the second or third chapter of every Econ 101 textbook is a discussion of market structures. It usu
backsUntitled source
The biggest beneficiaries of technological change are those who can anticipate which resources will become abundant and which will become scarce and are able to squander the abundant resource to corner the scarce one. ## The Math

holds
clay
Standard price theory, and the part of Shapiro's argument I would defend without his data. Weakest point: it tells you value moves without telling you where, so it is a question generator and not a prediction.