I didn't read EY as making that point. The 'hit points' analogy suggests that he's giving money priority over other things.

Like Ciphergoth, I think EY's point is that you can determine how much someone cares about some cause by seeing how much money they're willing to give up for that cause. So money has no inherent value in itself. It's only value is in giving it away to get something else in return; a sentiment I think most rational people agree and accept with.

In any case, there are some things that don't seem measurable in dollar terms: how much money would I accept to drop X% in social status or Y fewer friends?

You're looking at it in the reverse direction. It's not about receiving money. It's about giving up money. How much money would you be willing to spend for an increase in social status, or having more friends? Would you be willing to spend money to buy better clothes, an expensive watch, a nice car, a nice home, etc. for an increase in status? Would you be willing to pay for membership to some club, or for internet access, or at a social bar, for the opportunity to make more friends?

I have no idea how much I would pay for a friend.

If my best friend had cancer, and needed money for treatment, I'd probably contribute up until the thousands. It may sound harsh, cold and calculating, but when we get into the tens of thousands, it simply becomes too much for me to contribute. I care that my friend lives comfortably, but not infinitely so. The amount of money I'm willing to give up is an indication of the magnitude of how much I care.