Since we are to make specific hardware recommendations, pricing will oftentimes be a component of any given recommendation, whether because the asker specifically requests a certain price point as part of their requirements, or because we must choose between two products, otherwise essentially equal in stats, to recommend.
Given that inevitability, should we simply ASSUME that if no price is asked for, then by default we should always recommend the product that is less expensive (so long as we know it will get the job done)? In other words, should it be the policy of this site to recommend the less expensive of two choices if no other important difference exists, provided the OP has not asked otherwise?
For example, a hard case: Geraldina would like us to recommend an all-white graphics card to round out her Arctic-style build. She doesn't care too much about performance, as long as it is a "gaming card," and she's found two GPUs that she can't decide between - an Asus 590X and an Asus 590. The 590X is slightly faster than the 590, by about 5%, while the 590 is about %40 cheaper. All other facts about the two cards are the same, and they even use the same all-white blower cooler. Geraldina has reiterated that she doesn't really care about performance, she just wants it to be a "good gaming card." Do we recommend the cheaper of the two cards, or do we assume that we must maximize performance?
Another, different example: Jose would like to buy a fitness monitor, but he can't decide between three models because they all have the same stats. The companies that make them have similar reputations for quality, and warranties, etc. are all the same. Only pricing differentiates them. Jose says he doesn't care about price, he just wants to choose the best quality and performance available within this price range. Do we assume that we should recommend the cheapest of the three fitness monitors?