The problem here is that you're equating market value with everyday value. A bit like when people say evolution is just a theory, and there's a line between scientific theory and everyday theory.
Only in this case, why should we think the market value is the only thing to care about? Sure the market gives a number to every good and service, but are we not entitled to dispute whether that number is the right number?
> The problem here is that you're equating market value with everyday value.
As I said somewhere else, water is far more valuable than diamonds. But selling water doesn't earn you nearly as much.
That's not a sign of the "market value" being different than "everyday value". That's a sign that water is plentiful, so however much you want and need water, me selling you water is not really helping you - you can just go get water yourself.
> Sure the market gives a number to every good and service, but are we not entitled to dispute whether that number is the right number?
Of course. And it's sometimes wrong. We have lots of rules and regulations that try to make the market more in line with other things we care about.
But you do have to provide an alternative. And I know of no better mechanism than markets to, in general, give a price to something. Almost everything else is flawed and/or biased in some way.
And btw, parent comment wasn't providing a nice justification for why the pay of consultants is flawed - it was just quipping that they are clearly not worth the money. Which is offensive to me, I dislike just writing off a whole profession. That's why I asked for clarification!
The way I see it marginalism gives us some numbers, but given some constraints. For example, you can't be sending kids down your mine. The market then gives you an alternative figure for the price of diamonds. The question then is what constraints are reasonable. That whole discussion is a debate about our values in another sense.
About consultants (the MBB/B4 kind), all I can really say is that they tend to confess on their own that they don't provide much value. Everyone I know in the profession seems to say so. They find it utterly baffling that 23 year olds can be rented out at about 6x their salary to do presentations to managers with decades of experience. They often tell you that they are simply rubber stamping some internal decision with some nice slides, and that the slides have no real insights.
There doesn't have to be a contradiction either, it may well be that these guys are scarce like diamonds, but also like diamonds, they aren't really valuable in another sense.
Only in this case, why should we think the market value is the only thing to care about? Sure the market gives a number to every good and service, but are we not entitled to dispute whether that number is the right number?