According to the mainstream economical explanation:

Added value. These were only ruins of no value until Mr. Bingham "introduced them" to the western market. Now they are attractions.

Example: A Western PR intern earns more than a worker at the luxury automobile plant in the East. It is said because the intern adds more value to the product with fetching coffee than the worker with welding. 👨‍🏭💸👩‍💼

Is the added value hypothesis incorrect? I don't think so. Merely overly simplistic.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!