Given two technically and aesthetically identical products A and B, if A manages to get significantly more funding, better management and outreach, it will prob

Given two technically and aesthetically identical products A and B, if A manages to get significantly more funding, better management and outreach, it will probably sell more. We would say that the market thinks that A is more valuable. But A and B are identical products, so where is the difference in value coming from? I think funding, management and outreach all depend on human resources behind the product, most importantly, the team of founders. They have to get the funding, manage the company and communicate well to customers. If the founders are "high value", they can imbibe the product with some of this "value". A system of computing values, which includes this "human value" is problematic. In this system, the value of the Nazi philosophy, let's say, would depend on the person propagating it. A charismatic leader like Hitler brainwashed a lot of people into believing its legitimacy, thereby increasing the value of the philosophy. The same philosophy, in the hands of someone else, might not have gained any foothold. When we talk about equal opportunity, we talk about resources like money. But human resource can also play a huge impact in determining the value of a product. I do not know what the definition of equal opportunity in the context of "human value" should be. It is clear that a certain class of people possess more "human value" than others, and there is an inequality because of this. The question is : where does this value/inequality arise from? And should society continue including this in the computation of value, or should we construct rules where this value is suppressed? In summary, the market is not a detached entity judging value, but it can be influenced by "high value" people to go in a certain direction.