Already in semiology as proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in Cours de Linguistique générale (1916) linguistic value is not considered in isolation. Saussure proposes to connect linguistic value to economic value as described by the nearby (with respect to Geneva) School of Lausanne, with Walras and Pareto. In her two books What Is Meaning (1903) and Significs and Language (1911), Victoria Welby also places great imporance on the relation between signs and value, therefore between semiotics and axiology, preferring to “semiotics” the denomination “significs” which better rendered the sense of the question “what does it signify?”. This question not only contains the problem of “meaning”, but also of “significance”. Welby’s influence on Charles S. Peirce, considering their intense correspondence, is noteworthy and certainly not only for what concerns his existential graphs. In Peirce too we can trace a close relation between the problematic of the sign and that of value. Thanks also to Welby’s influence, this issue is also central in the approach to signs adopted by Giovanni Vailati who introduced Peirce’s semiotics to Italy, specifying the difference with respect to William James, thus distinguishing between the latter’s “pragmatism” and “pragmaticism” as Peirce eventually decided to nominate his own approach to differentiate from James’s. The term “significance” is used altogether independently from Welby by Charles Morris, he too evidencing the importance of not separating the study of signs from values, and he too interested in connecting meaning and significance. Morris’s orientation is continued by Ferruccio Rossi-Landi who published the first monograph ever, world-wide, on Morris. Rossi-Landi returns to the connection proposed by Saussure between linguistic and economic value. However, differently from Saussure, the connection he makes is not to marginalistic economics with Walras and Pareto, but to classical economics as conceived by Smith and Ricardo. Moreover, Rossi-Landi connects the study of signs to the study of ideology and ideology is related to values to the extent that ideology, as he defines it, is social planning. We propose to develop this trajectory in the sphere of semiotics, considering the question of signs today, in the post-globalization era, with its inevitable references to communication, exchange, the market, in addition to everyday behaviour and dominant ideology, or better, dominant “ideo-logic”. Technological and telematic development in today’s world, with the spread of telework causes production itself to become comunication, just as communication is also consumption given that the aim of buying is above all to show, to show just how much one has succeeded in buying. It ensues that the three phases of production – production, exchange and consumption – all enter communication and consequently concern semiotics. However this is semiotics that, from our own perspective, is not servile towards the current form of production as semiotics of marketing, but rather semiotics that in the face of all this maintains a critical function, interrogating itself yet again with Saussure, with Welby, with Peirce, with Vailati, with Morris and with Rossi-Landi on the problem of the relation between signs and values.