An Economist is Wrong

And I don’t even mean one of those that think descriptive science can turn into normative science in a twitch.
I actually mean an Economist article. This one.
[Edited to add a week later: vindict]

Q: Why was oil so valuable? A: Because it took money to produce, and supply was limited – both at any moment and in total global possible availability; even if almost all of the earth consisted of oil, it would still be a finite physical amount with exponential production costs. The oil you burn, is lost forever so even your current stock perishes – though the value is maintained in the stock you have, so not (intrinsically) lower in time.
Q: Why is data considered valuable? A: Because some stupid didn’t see that supply is endless, and any physical limits hardly apply – data is losslessly [nice word] copyable and producable into infinity, at costs that decrease over time, too. And the value of data decreases exponentially with time, against which ‘enrichment’ only helps in the short term. Who cares what you did some little while ago? [Any criminal act of yours lapses in due time, and that same category of acts by politicians (i.e., many of their acts), too. Just give it enough time and their acts might even turn into heroic acts – the few ones that aren’t forgotten that is.] Even for advertisers, the great paycheck writers qua ‘data’ when discussing value, will hardly care what you did last Summer. It’s like money with presses at full speed, plus ever more presses being put into production – like here.

So, …
Either work on value retention, or on the decrease of production [Hey, you know, privacy ..!? Yes data minimisation will increase the value of what you do keep],
or …
Go out and create as much data as you can, as quickly as possible, and take care to inject sufficient amounts of random noise. Bury the profilers.

Oh well; let’s enjoy:
[Even in the midst of Haut Koenigsbourg, one finds pumpkin spice latte’s godmother. Oh wait.]