Somehow I missed this reply, but I want to respond.
I think that we all can agree is that we can easily gauge the worthiness of things
Individually, yes. Collectively, not so much. If we all universally agreed on what something was worth we wouldn't need a neutral system in place to determine it (stock exchange for instance). There also wouldn't exist political parties, but there is and they represent different values which people agree with more than other values by voting.
Value is inherently subjective because value as a concept wouldn't even exist without humans to judge what something is worth.
like the material things at the end of the day are worth the money that you can sell it , aka the market price
Well, doesn't make it any more objective. If you auction something, is it objectively worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay? It certainly wasn't worth more for any of the other bidders. Exchanges are probably the closest we will get to universal value, but it still only shows what the majority think something is worth, there are still others with different judgements about the value.
but Maybe that will not be the best price at which you can sell something , as we all want to maximize the amount that we will receive in exchange of something
There is also the pressure from the buying side to get it at the lowest possible price. Which side of a transaction you are on greatly biases your judgement about the value of an object, you can hardly call that objective by any stretch of the imagination. If you're buying "it's not worth that much", if you're selling "it's worth more than that".
that is where the modeling comes in . As an example in stocks a P/E lower than 15 is considered under valued , while something more than 20 is considered over valued . Then you have something like Tesla at 685 which is ridiculously over valued
That is merely one way to assess the value of an asset. It's a useful way to look at it, but at the end of the day it's driven by the judgements of the people buying and selling it which as I said is naturally biased.
I think that we can easily find a way to quantify objectively the value of something
As I said, exchanges are the closest we will get, basically letting people reach agreement despite their subjective assessments of value within a neutral system. Even then, a value is only true in that moment, it can shift over time. It gives an average at best.
A large range of factors go into determining value, many of which are personal and thus subjective. Can you tell me what a fidget spinner is objectively worth? You can't, some may still take personal interest in it, most probably don't give a fvck about fidget spinners anymore. So not only is value subjective, it is also impermanent since there was a time these pieces of plastic, ball bearings and weights was sought after by many.
I am able to work with generalizations about value as a factor when I judge what something might be worth, something I have to do to avoid overbidding to get the lowest price for myself while still getting what I want. I do still recognize value for what it is and that it isn't objective.
This became very economical, but the same principle applies to attraction. You could point out a woman to me and we might have very different views about what she's worth. Every such discussion on this forum is a testament to how wildly different our opinions can be and how subjective this is.