[goblin89]

> if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't.

Money is good since it provides a reference point, a solid ground for measurement and comparison. Although often you need to take into account some non-obvious stuff when you compare two amounts of money (esp. prices), it still does work.

For ‘inherent value’ each person would see their own price tag. And I'm sure my tag would reflect smaller amount for Jane Austen's book than yours.

And feet-voting is good if you can judge on a large scale, which is not always applicable. Edit: by the way, most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book (that is, if we were able to conduct a really unbiased experiment with random selection of people).

[gbog]

> most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book

Seriously? If you had to be thrown on a desert island and bring only one thing, would you bring a short term belly chemical satisfaction asset like a big mac, or a long term spirit satisfaction asset like a Classic book in your mother tongue?

[goblin89]

Don't forget that most people on this planet reportedly are a) poor and b) not having English as their mother tongue (probably not even speaking it).

[gbog]

It is a mistake to think that poor people don't value cultural assets. And I used Jane Austeen as an example, obviously.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

This is a straw man argument. Very, very few people will ever be in such a situation.

However, what is unfortunately much more common is day to day hunger. I'm willing to bet that most people (myself included), after a few days of not eating, would rather have the Big Mac than the Austen book.

I love literature, but it won't keep me alive.