There are two conditions in his statement: the "rated goodness" and the monetary value. He says they're linked, always. The two traits are linked quite often, and better photographs do tend to sell for more money than lesser ones. But to insist that all photographs must have this link to be considered "good" is ludicrous.
Hard to get much notice at the bank from "good" alone. That a few amateur judges at a camera club competition or an online site rate an image as "good" is way less gratifying than selling prints on a regular basis.