> I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. That's not how I read it -- the authors were not

> I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. That's not how I read it -- the authors were not assigning a qualitative value to the items, only a quantitative one. They did not need to be the same 'type' of asset. It was just that when comparing the savings - 50/300 vs 50/1000 - some people considered the ratio more important than the numerator.