D.1. The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: It is to introduce a good in economic analysis which is not defined as an economic good (See D.1 in 1.3.4).
E.1. Since economics deals with consequences for our behaviour of the scarce substitutable means and multiple ends, anything that does not discuss this relation of scarcity and ends, logically, is out of bounds of the subject matter of economics. Accordingly, to treat it as economics is a fallacious reasoning.
To simply consider mass production of a good (i.e. means) without its relation with demand (i.e. ends) is one such instance of Misplaced Concreteness. No amount of "a lot" can be meaningful unless it is a lot because of a little demand, or sufficient, or less demand, or equal demand etc. To suggest, since we can mass produce something, we should mass produce it, is a Misplaced Concreteness i.e. it falsely assumes something concrete to belong to an abstract idea when it does not. Mass production does not form an Economic Good unless it is compared with demand in which case it is just equilibrium or excess of supply or demand.
E.2. Nothing per-se formulate any economic value, or become an economic good. Technical efficiencies, or potentialities, per-se do not formulate any economic value, or become an economic good.