1:1 Production
Early systems of economics considered a very limited number of objects to constitute wealth: an individual was considered to be wealthy according to the size of his hoard of metal, coin, gemstones, and other precious objects.
This perspective was changed later to consider wealth to consist of the various material objects that contribute to the necessities and conveniences of life: foodstuffs, clothing, furnishings, buildings, and similar objects that had practical use - the metal and coins that had previously commanded attention have value only in their ability to be exchanged for such things.
But even at that, the owner of more practical things derives no benefit from them unless he has use for them. A man who holds a hundred thousand bolts of cloth takes from them no more benefit than another man who holds a hundred thousand pounds of silver in a vault.
The value of things is created, and exists only temporarily, in the act of their consumptive use. This is the true nature of wealth.
Few things offer value in the state in which they occur in nature - hence, goods must be produced.
Production should not be misconstrued to be creation. We do not conjure things from thin air, but merely labor upon existing materials to combine them and change their form and properties. If production is said to be a creative act, it is because it creates utility from existing materials, not the material itself.
Likewise it is misleading to consider price to be the value of things: value is a function of their utility - and while price represents an estimation of this value (to a given person) it is indirect.
Price is also a negotiation between parties involved in the exchange. The price a buyer offers considers the utility he will gain by obtaining it, and the price a seller accepts reflects his estimation of the utility he has invested in its creation.
Where there is direct barter for goods between to parties, each considers the utility of the object he will obtain as well as the utility of the object with which he must part and makes a decision he feels to be advantageous to himself.
However, various factors make the matter more complex for the seller: in setting his price, he considers not only the intrinsic value of an item, but the costs incurred in providing it, expenses wholly unrelated to the product (taxes and transportation costs), and his desire to generate a profit from trade. (EN: This is quite good but omits a handful factors that immediately come to mind and likely more that don't. I'll refrain from listing them, just meant to drop a reminder that this is not a comprehensive model of the seller's considerations in pricing goods.)
These factors create an "excess of price" of goods over their intrinsic utility, which does not always derive from greed or dishonesty of the seller. This is why silk-makers in India remain impoverished even though their goods command a high price in Europe (transportation and risk). It also explains entirely domestic/local phenomena, particularly in the form of taxation that requires a buyer to pay 15 cents fro a bottle of wine that could otherwise be sold for 10 cents, due to a 5-cent tax.
These factors have a significant and largely unnecessary impact on the prices buyers must pay for things - but are merely additive to the inherent source of value, which is the producer's labor that results in the creation of a utile object from less useful materials.