To the person who paid £1,000,000, she would be worth it by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't pay it. Does that mean she's worth it to other people? Not unless she can find anyone to pay it. What is the alternative? Is there an independent arbiter of prossie value? Who would that be, then? "Market value" is simply what buyers are willing to pay. Or do you have another definition?
Correct. All perceived value comes from the person buying. In economic terms, as consumers we value things based on their expected utility to us personally (where as Sergei would value her based on the expected cash flow she's likely to generate)
Nothing has intrinsic financial value. A can of coke is worth nothing unless someone wants to drink it. A WG's services are worth nothing unless someone will pay to consume them.
We obviously have very different ideas regarding economics and the such and we will not agree, certainly not over a few posts on a punting forum.
I disagree with your definition. I have bought things, but known I've been overpaying. I do not consider the item to be worth what I've paid. Your thirsty gentleman may not have a choice, but he will know he's being ripped off. Just because somebody pays a price doesn't even mean that they consider the item/service to be worth it.
I do not believe that something is worth what somebody pays for it and that "worth" is so arbitrary. I believe that things (prossies, cans of Coke, cars, etc,) do have an intrinsic value. If you pay more then it wasn't worth it, less and you have yourself a good deal.
Market forces will generate market worth. It has nothing to to with parting the one fool with his money.
Another example, was Andy Carroll worth £35,000,000 just because Liverpool paid it?