I believe he didn't think much, but just wanted to rant. It's easy to see that an interference from the attribute of one good to the attribute of another is us

I believe he didn't think much, but just wanted to rant. It's easy to see that an interference from the attribute of one good to the attribute of another is usually not sound. For example, just because bricks are commodities doesn not mean everybody is able to build proper houses. Also, if we follow his assumptions and logic, any language that would have won the popularity contest, would have been a "looser" by his definition. For nearly everybody would code in the most popular language, therefore reducing prices for programming jobs in that language. But, of course, this logic is also flawed. For it assumes that supply of programmers increases while demand remains more or less constant, which consequently leads to decreasing prices for programming jobs. However, the popularity of a language may also increase demand for programming jobs. Depending on the relative effects, (average) prices may decrease or increase.