> For example if the price of milk were to appreciate and it goes from 2$ to 2.50 a gallon (inflation adjusted), then we're getting worse at producing milk. by

> For example if the price of milk were to appreciate and it goes from 2$ to 2.50 a gallon (inflation adjusted), then we're getting worse at producing milk. by your logic, organic milk is "worse" because it costs more. Maybe the price of something was low because people simply don't want it for some reason. Maybe people don't want it because the quality is low. Maybe we get better, not worse, at producing this good and the quality goes up: now the price of that good goes up because more people want it, because it's more desirable. Price going up can signal that we're getting -better- at producing a good, not -worse-, under certain conditions. Prices changes can also have absolutely nothing to do with how good we are at producing something. Maybe the CDC puts out a notice that milk causes spontaneous combustion, and so the price of milk plummets because nobody wants it any more because they're afraid of bodily immolation. Now a bunch of producers go out of business. A new report comes out! That last report was baloney. Suddenly everyone wants milk again. Milk is great! But there aren't enough producers now. The prices skyrocket! A roller-coaster of changes in pricing can occur with literally no change whatsoever in our ability to produce a good. Rising prices does not imply that we got worse at producing something, it literally only means that people are willing to pay more for the good. It has absolutely no explanatory power to help you reason about -why- they're paying more. How did the supply change? How did the demand change? How did the product change? None of these things are addressed by stating, in a vacuum, that the price went up.