I appreciate the discussion of "cost" vs. "value." An airline lost my baggage on a domestic flight last summer. They assured me that they would "make it right" by reimbursing me for everything that was lost. I had to fill out a form listing each item, when it was purchased, and for how much. It became very apparent that the cost of something had little relation to my valuation of it. I bought my favorite pink shorts from Goodwill for $4; but they are no longer being made and were literally irreplacable. Items I had owned for a longer time were more valuable to me, but they were going to be depreciated by the airline. My ten-year-old hat was worth more to me that a new one, but would have been considered valueless by the airline. I also lost some unique souveniers I had bought in Thailand. Their "cost" was only a few dollars, but their value to me here in the U.S. was of course much higher, even if considering only their full replacement cost including round trip travel to Thailand. My sister had given me 10 pounds of rhubarb from our family farm, lost in my luggage. The cost was zero, and I could have bought more rhubarb from our farmers market, but my sister's rhubarb from our farm was worth more to me than store bought. However, there was no way for the airline to account for this. Finally, I had picked about 10 pounds of fresh rose hips from my childhood home to make into preserves to savor the taste of New England year round. The cost was free, but the value was incalcuable. You can't buy fresh rose hips in Atlanta or on the Internet. It may be that the cost of our belongings is actually inversely related to our valuation of them!