But commoditization is great for consumers and has been for centuries, and high-quality luxury goods are still available for those who care to spend more money on that sort of thing.
Then you're factually wrong. Commoditization does not include design theft. If we're talking about handcrafted sunglasses and then someone else makes a machine-created alternative that looks different but has similar properties, that'd be more inline.
That said, defining designer goods as "commodities" is a hell of a stretch for that word. Assuming good faith, you're drawing a parallel. But if I were not very firmly and strenuously looking for a good faith explanation, I'd worry you're just using "an economics word" to make it sound like you have a theoretically backed argument.
> But commoditization is great for consumers and has been for centuries, and high-quality luxury goods are still available for those who care to spend more money on that sort of thing.
Considering actual commodities by the dictionary definition, this is true up to a point. But it doesn't really apply to finished goods.
It's when we decide that design theft is defensible because it creates inferior, copycat goods that are cheaper, and that's somehow been defined as laudable progress by you in this thread.