"First, it currently costs several thousand dollars per pound to put something into LEO. Putting a pound of something on the moon is much more expensive due to the higher energy requirements and the need for the landing hardware. A given booster capable of putting say 10,000 pounds into LEO might only be able to land 1,000 pounds or less on the moon. The rest will be used by the extra propellant needed to boost the vehicle into TLI then slow it down to land plus the extra rocket motors, guidance systems, landing gear, etc."

Yeah, so I don't get it. Why does it seem like you are disputing something I said?

"Second, you could put 1,000 pounds of whatever on the moon and it'll be worth only what someone is willing to pay for it. Since at present there is no market on the moon, the stuff you put on the moon has zero value. Space really isn't an "if you build it, they will come" market. They will only come if there's a scientific or business need to do so. Anything else is a pipedream."

But I'm assuming that there would be some need of rocket fuel on the lunar surface and in Lunar orbit. If rocket fuel is something which is needed then a determining factor is it's replacement value- the cost of shipping it from Earth.
And there is scientific and commerical interest regarding the Moon.
Not only the Moon but the rest of the Universe, and IF there is minable quantities of Lunar ice then the Moon (in the near term) can be Earth's major spaceport. If there is no minable lunar ice, then the Moon will still be a Earth's spaceport but it might be in some distant uncertain future.
And if you are of the opinion that the Space environment will never be of any serious significant value to Earthlings (much, much more than it is currently), then I believe the burden is upon you to dispute this assumption.