[lucideer]

> That item has value equivalent to the money given for it, therefore that item has value.

> Money is just the measure of value

Money is the measure of market value. If you believe it's the measure if inherent value, you believe anything outside of the market has no value. E.g. that human lives have no value outside of waged labour (or heck, even slavery).

The point here is the monetary value is a model of value, not the definition of it. If you are defining an item's value by it's market price, then you believe what the gp was describing: that "only money has value" (since it defines all value).

[EQmWgw87pw]

What’s another way you can measure or define value? What would you say is the non-monetary value of non-buyable things?