That makes no sense. If you use the number of points awarded for slams as proof of them being equal, then you should also grant that a two masters equals one slam by the same token.
The point is that with regards to the ranking, that is true. All slams are equal with regards to the ranking. But, obviously, how much something affects the ranking isn't automatically how much perceived value is assigned to the same feat.
No one is arguing about how many points are awarded to different slams; we are obviously arguing about how prestigious each slam is, and the only true answer here is that this is a subjective judgement. There is no universal law for how prestigious each slam should be regarded.
It's rather you who misunderstood my point. You try to equate the money and points given by the tourneys with how prestigious people should consider them. There is no automaticity in that these should be the only factor one considers. That the only way to judge the value or prestige of a slam is from prize money and points, that in itself would be a subjective judgement. One could just as easily weigh other factors.
I am talking about the perceived value that makes many/most players rank Wimbledon as the slam they would rather win and as the most prestigious one.
The perceived value that makes many fans rank it as the most prestigious and important tournament.
You're a Novak fan, no? Take it from his mouth then:
"This is the tournament I always dreamed of winning, the best tournament in the world, the most valuable one"
http://youtu.be/ruo4NJZRmoY?t=1m28s
Do I hence mean that Wimby is objectively the most valuable tournament in tennis? Nah, I'm saying that there is no universal rule for how much each player or person will value winning a particular tournament, or rank the different tournament, and hence saying that "from an objective standpoint all slams can only be valued as equal" is BS.