It actually is how it works. For most valuations, you(g) take the subject and do a cost based approach. This cost based approach gives you a baseline valuation of your subject. This determines fair market value.
If everyone could produce a Training level packer for YRs or a 3ft hack winner for a trust fund kid, the world would be crawling with them. If every horse trained could unfailingly do this job, they couldn’t be so rare that consumers have to act immediately on a horse the moment it hits the market.
The significant wastage impacts the available market too. Horses die unexpectedly in training. They sustain freak injuries. They sustain riding related injuries. They decide they don’t like the job they’re asked to do. They are quirky or maybe less amateur friendly than hoped. They have hidden congenital issues. Fewer horses in the pool drives up their demand which drives up prices — this is the very basis of economics.
Your car analogy is not a fair analogy. Think if it like a house instead. You buy a house that has a base value that is middling. You make significant improvements to the house. Your value subsequently goes up which will, down the road, affect sale price.
This goes for horses too. No one wants a green broke 12 y/o. Everyone wants a 12 y/o packer. All things equal, the packer has more improvements therefore is more valuable.
How do you think that horse became a packer? Thousands and thousands of dollars in training, showing, clinicing — aka improvements. Without that education he’d be a green 12 y/o and no one would pay 50k for him. With that education, he’s valuable and 50k starts to sound reasonable.
Why not just come out and say it? Your thread is targeted as a frustration / vent thread against people who have money.
They are not your enemy. They are not driving up land costs, fuel costs, hay costs, and horse costs.