I'm not sure I understand the intent of the original post, there might be a language barrier thing here. But just so I understand it.
The OP's premise is: Pricing books as high as possible is good. It both rewards the author and encourages other authors, thus ensuring that those of us who can afford it has even more reading material.
Is that correct?
Assuming that it is, my argument is that promoting higher prices on book based on those reason are hogwash. High prices on books is not in anyones except the publishers/distributors interest due to the following reasons:
As much as some of us wish it, we're not authors or publishers (well most of us atleast), we're consumers. The lower the price is, the better, lower prices means we can either afford more books, or more other things.
High prices limits who the audience is, that means that while the author might prosper from limiting who his books actually reach, it hurts us as a group. Even if some of us can be smug about it not individually affecting us, it still affect us as a group.
There's currently no glut of authors. We have alot of good authors, who just can't get proper exposure. I'd argue that it's a pretty weak argument that we have to pay more money, to get more authors most of us won't ever get to read. And who alot of might never read, because the prices are too high
There's also no guaranteed correlation between the price a consumer pays and the profit the original author sees. Just because something costs more, doesn't mean the author profits more.