Let's take your points in turn:
It seems to me that there is a lot of interest from people to do edit of questions and other pluckings of "low hanging fruits" to snap up reputation points.
Good, we want people to be editing well; it's just as important to the sites as someone answering or asking questions well. You can only get 1k reputation from editing so you can't get any of the hard stuff from this alone.
I wonder whether that is the true nature of a "reputed" expert of the field?! I would have thought that a field expert would be snapping up points mostly by answering a question or asking a very relevant question that would interest a lot of people.
Reputation in no way defines an expert. Forget this. Reputation is an indicator of how good someone is at using a particular site.
It looks like gone are the days when it was hard to earn points on stackoverflow, unless you knew your stuff!
Are you joking? In the early days all the easy stuff went quickly and people got thousands of reputation for answering questions about calculating age in C# or what the information schema is. I'll admit that there are almost certainly people with reputation who don't know their stuff but, see above and check out what tags they normally answer in.
It looks like the reputation points have been devalued!
You'll have to come up with a better reason why than "I think it was hard to earn points a few years ago".
One last thing to note, there are only 15,819 users with more than 3,000 reputation. That's 0.86% of the user-base. There's hardly a lot of people who've somehow snuck into some more than 3k rep cabal without doing anything.
It will be quite interesting to see what an economic analyst will make of the state of devaluation of the "reputation currency" !
Assuming such a devaluation exists what would you expect an analysis of the economics of reputation to say? There's almost no trade! There's no much to talk about; everything is one way and anonymous unless you "out" yourself.