I don't own a Lamborghini, which is why a Toyota - a car that I could afford - is more valuable to me. Even if I could afford a Lamborghini, I'd not drive it because I'd be afraid I'll crash it, and it doesn't carry all the cargo I need to drive - again that makes a Toyota more valuable to me.

Your inability to afford a Lamborghini or fear of crashing it doesn't make it less valuable.

I get what you're saying. I don't drive, nor do I want, a Lamborghini, but that fact does not reduce its value.

Only if you are defining value exclusively as its sticker price.

However even if we limit it to monetary aspects, defining value is still not as cut and dry because it could easily also be argued that the value of the Toyota is far greater than the Lamborghini due to ongoing costs of ownership and total service life.

Value is not usually defined as sticker price in most cases outside of luxury items to begin with. Much more commonly value refers to a non-specific calculus between the price of an item and it’s utility value.

How can we directly compare the utility value of hauling cargo versus turning the heads of the people we drive past?

Which would you pay more $ to keep?