Our perception of macroscopic nature imply that we interact in order to live (an interaction is an atomic exchange of contents between two systems, see my last book if you're interested). If I had invited you for a beer in exchange of advice, it is clear that we've exchanged something. The beer was a physical entity, the advice a logical entity (see a hierarchy of entities in ). Imagine that the beer costed me 5$, and I was happy to pay for it. You was also happy. Both can agree that the exchange was fair.
That doesn't mean, objectively, that an advice costs 5$. But in this particular case, the advice does costed 5$, subjectively (for each subject). We have the natural habit of giving value to any type of entity, and money is just one form of value. Every minute, in family, society, Internet, etc. we exchange advice, love, cars, guitars, gossip, etc.
Of course, usually, we don't speak of the value of each content we interchange, we just know it (that's what our learning is about since childhood: we learn to weight interactions, what we give and what we receive, when to exchange and when to avoid interactions, when to repeat them or when to reject people that causes us loss after interaction).
No one tells his girlfriend "I invite you for a dinner of 51.99$ in exchange of 33:19 minutes of sex". But the fact is that subjectively, such value could be extremely profitable for both partners. And they could be so happy that they could repeat the interaction several times. Even if both had never thought of the exchange in such sordid way.
 What would be the correct abstraction for Thing and Action?