Residents of Argentina, during its worst inflation, reportedly became familiar with stores that posted their prices for goods using odometer-like devices that generally shot up several times a day because the Argentine currency was worth only what people thought it was worth, which was less and less.

Money and stocks and real estate (to a large degree) and advertising are worth only what people think they’re worth. They fluctuate, soar and plummet based on what a hungry pack of selfish traders think they’re worth. Theoretically, these markets have some wisdom, though they’ve been monumentally deluded by greedy fantasies from time to time.

Many things have caused the value of advertising to fall, not least the recession, but also the Web’s superiority at giving users many kinds of information (especially compared with many mediocre newspapers), and giving advertisers the attention of many kinds of users, as Jeff Jarvis correctly, pugnaciously and gleefully points out. The bad business judgment of recent buyers of over-leveraged newspapers, leading to almost-immediate failures, contributes to the conventional wisdom that print sucks.

As some established media totter on the brink, new-media evangelists deliver the coup de grace with the skill of a Reagan wordsmith, framing them as “legacy media,” with delicious connotations of musty lace, tarnished silver and worthless ornate old stock certificates.

And a chorus of partisans who love the Web’s freedom, who resent the abuses of media oligopolists, some of whom are building careers (or at least MP3 collections) on this new media ideology, continues to push down the value of ads in established media.

Which was always worth only what people thought it was worth. And lately trades for less and less.

The Super Bowl’s RATING (as opposed to the total audience) has shrunk just like all other TV ratings. Barely 1-in-3 Americans watched the Superbowl this year. “All in the Family” would draw half the country every week back in the 70’s.

Was advertising in “All in the Family” (or even the MASH finale for that matter) sold for more than the most recent Superbowl, even adjusted for inflation? Not even close.

The last time I saw abundance was when I looked out my window and saw the woods and four feet of snow here in Maryland. Then again, the last time I witnessed scarcity was when I was on Madison Avenue and was looking for a bathroom.

Is it possible that we’ve been surrounded by non-scarcity the whole time and we just didn’t realize it. I’m not sure about the world population statistics, but the last time I looked I think there was actually slightly more than one woman for every man. That’s what you call a plentiful environment.

The next time you’re carrying in cases of Costco bottled water from your SUV in the rain, think about the irony of that picture. This and other ideas are always abundantly free at tradewithdave.com.

I understand that the record was only on a “total viewers” and not ratings basis. But isn’t that what the cost an advertiser pays would be based upon? (Unless the advertiser has an additional need for exclusivity or “buzz”?)

PS – I am not in advertising