> Money counts several things, but central, if not primary, among these is
> numbers of hours of work. A car costs 20,000 times what a hamburger costs
> because it takes 20,000 times more labor to make a car than it does to make
> a hamburger. That's not the whole story, but it's certainly not NONE of the
> story either.
>
This doesn't sound right at all to me.
The wages of the workers in the service industry and in the automotive manufacturing are very different and the profit rates per auto or hamburger are most likely much different.
Therefore, one cannot surmise at all that the difference in cost between a hamburger and an auto stems from the amount of labour that went into their creation.
In another example: CDs are much less expensive to produce than vinyl or cassette tapes, but they have always been more expensive, because the industry could get away with hiking up the cost because the consumers thought (at first) the new technology must be more expensive, and then they got used to the high prices. Again, not related to the 'amount of labour' that went into its production.