Cartridges: Complete Scam?

According to my mom I was not only the most handsome but
also the most smart kid in the whole world. Well our carts are
our babe's. But we all know the difference between objective
and subjectieve part of the game. So in order to give objective appearance to our subjective preferences we use technical arguments and talk about materials , styli shapes, exotic cantilevers and even exotic magnets.
Sometime the expression '''art''  was used instead but never elaborated. I would say ''painting '' is available to everyone but there is only one Michelangelo, etc. Consider the following list: Sugano, Takeda , Ikeda, Van den Hul, Allaerts , Andreoli (Magic Diamond),      Carr and Lukatschek (Benz).                                                                 I think that chakster mentioned in one of his latest post the ''case''       ''Fuuga''. The whole group of Takeda admirers who wanted to    
''copy'' his Miyabi standard. This was ,alas, not possible so they produced their own ''Fuuga'' asking + $ 8000 for their ''baby''.              There is this, uh, biological fact about man. They seem to want            to produce as many kids as they can. So among my babies
  there are Ikeda's, Takeda's , Andreoli's , Allaerts , Lukatschek           and Sugano. 

    

The ''classical economist'' (Smit, Ricardo,etc.) try to formulate             ''theory of value'' by distinction between ''value in use'' and                 ''value in exchange''. Something like ''the real value'' and ''prices''.       To illuminate the difference (the so called ''reduction of complexity'')     they used examples like water and ear. Both have incredible               ''value in use '' but no ''exchange value '' whatever. Both economist of course thought that UK represent the world. In the middle east        the next war will be about water while China is more threaten            by ear pollution then by NATO.                                                                Alas the theory of the ''real value'' was never ,uh, produced so           the only alternative still is ''theory of prices'' expressed in money         terms while there is no sensible theory of money at all.                      Nobody knows what the ''price'' of dollar or euro will be next
year.
 In this thread   everyone has his own theory of value   with the
same distinction but according to his own interpretation of the             ''real value'' or ''value in use''.

    

Whoever disagree with (market) prices assumes some other
''concept '' or theory of value. Say , one assume some ''real value'' different from the (market) prices. As I try to explain with classical economist who distinguished between 'value in use'' and ''value in
exchange '' ( aka  prices) . Alas they deed not succeed to formulate any  consistent theory of  the ''real value''. Except perhaps Ricardo in his  ''corn economy'' in which all ''values'' are expressed in terms of  corn amounts. So one should be aware what one assume.  There is no other economic theory than theory of (market) prices,