This was your original comment in this thread: "There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate i

This was your original comment in this thread: "There is such a thing as objective value. Stocks have objective value because they pay dividends. Real estate in warm climates has objective value because it's pleasant to be in a warm place in winter. BMW costs more than a honda civic because it is objectively a better driving experience." You were claiming that value is determined by the objective features/metrics, now you're saying that "overall value is highly correlated to objective metrics" -- which one is it? First you say it's objective, now you're saying it's just highly correlated? Those aren't the same things -- if objective metrics were all that mattered, value would be 100% tied to the objective metrics/features, but it's not. If objective metrics were all that mattered, you could ALWAYS create something bigger, faster, or stronger and have it sell for more than the next best item on the market -- but that's not how it works. There are NUMEROUS example of products which were "objectively" better but failed because people did not perceive their value to be high enough worth purchasing.