There are many reasons Bush provides for giving objects their value. First she uses the example of the Antiques Roadshow to show the contrast between symbolic and monetary value, with people bringing in objects which they believe have value even if it turns out that they have no worth in terms of money. Then she brought up the difference between design and function, with each giving different objects different amounts of value. Another reason she brought up was the historical value of objects, referencing how the FBI and family members of 9/11 victims each gave different historical values to objects taken from the World Trade Center's ruins. The FBI saw it as just evidence to be used, while the family members saw the objects had deeper sentimental meaning to the memory of the victims.
I know for me personally that both the symbolic value and functional value reflect how I am with the objects I own. Nothing I own, except for a few newer things, has much monetary value. My room is full of old awards from band basketball and baseball made out of cheap metal and plastic, some things from my childhood like a few toys and Pokemon cards, and old books I've read. Other than the books, some of which I want to read again, none of them have any use and are definitely not worth any money. On the other hand the few objects I have that do have monetary value, my drum set laptop and phone, all have very functional value to me. None of them were bought because they were the most expensive or looked the nicest. I have an android phone and a P, and I picked my drum set based on which one sounded the best to me. I don't really have any other reason for the relationships I have with my objects, so I wouldn't say any have been omitted either.
