Your underlying argument is that these items do not cost nearly that much to produce, so why should the consumer pay so much for them? The problem with that argument is that the cost of production is not, and never has been, the sole determiner of price. Marketing sizzle accounts for much of it, but certainly not all. Extremely high-quality goods also perform better, if perhaps only marginally, than their lesser-cost competitors, and that difference may be sufficient for someone sensitive to minor differences in quality.

For example, I have been known to pay upwards of $400 for a new fountain pen. Ridiculous, especially when I can scarf a free pen from the bank. I didn't pay that much because it was a name brand with sterling reputation (though it was, and for good reason), but because in this digital age, I write quite a bit with my pens, and am extremely sensitive to their nuances. That pen wrote like nothing I've ever held in my hands, and I bought it immediately.

Did it cost anywhere near $400 to produce or market? Hell no. But its quality, and my dependence on its function, made it worth that much to me.

Same with an $18k bike. You or I may not notice a difference; to others, it may be like lightning.