some covoluted thoughts on money and the meaning of value.

I think one of the main flaws that came with the great invention of the modern monetary system is the misplacement and misunderstanding of value by society.

Of what constitutes value.

You see, because value in itself is a highly subjective and ambiguous thing/concept to begin with, (something that the human mind has constantly struggled with), the modern monetary system unofficially and highly inadequately filled in this gap by arbitrary defining value for purely pragmatic reasons when it was created and hence, has from then on become (more or less) the standard for value. Or in the other words, we took price=value.

(wow i am so...un...understandable.... pls pardon the convoluted and incoherent writing and i hope you get my drift.)

But if you think about it (ha i am told i use this phrase a lot), how accurate is this? and how logical is this really?

Economics 101, tells us that a price arises from the interaction between forces of demand and supply. This means that we if were to take the value of something to be as the price states it to be, the average consumer or person in society defines value as according to how much a supplier is willing to sell it at and how much a buyer is willing to purchase it at. (of course this sch of thought already assumes price=value)

What this really means is that i am taking a strangers' perception of value of an object and adopting it as my own. (this could be liken to adopting a stranger's favourite colour to be your favourite colour, which one would normally consider.... rather absurd)

And then if you deconstruct the money=value thing, you'd realise how inequitable/absurd the monetary system can be.

For eg, who decided that food=a price, if food is the thing that sustains human life?
Or in another sense,
With S$3.90, i can either buy a plate of chicken rice (if you are an international reader, this is basically a Singaporean local favourite dish... you should try it sometime) or a pilot pen.
Now, how is that equitable?
On one hand you have an object that satisfies (as according to maslow's hierarchy of needs) your most basic needs, yet on the other you have an object that is a tool that you use to express the highest form of need you have. (creativity...etc... self-actualisation essentially)
But then you would probably say, to each his/her own. Or rather ... to each his/her own need.
Yeah i guess, but.... i don't know.
It just.... doesnt feel right/equitable.

Anywhos... I just feel that with society placing so much emphasis on the tangible and the economy, we have abandoned the meaning of value to the monetary system. I suspect it is partly because we did not have a good and solid idea of what value meant in the beginning and secondly because we're just lazy, superficial crowd-followers. Hence, we abandoned it to the monetary system. Hmmm and maybe because we are devotees of the monetary system as well.

To me, true value is intangible.
True value is priceless. And this should not even be ironic as it so often comes across as nowadays.
The reason why this is so is because we have so closely yet erroneously associated value=price.

Value is subjective.
Value doesn't/shouldn't come with a standardised number.
Value is personal.
Value is what the entity means to you.

And i think the greatest disproof of value=price or price=value is what we consider most valuable in our lives.

Joy.
Love.
Peace.
Security.
And the people who embody these attributes.
People like our friends. siblings. Parents.
Human relations.

Value.
what is value?

I think value is an infinite concept.
Something immeasurable if you really want to stay true to what value really means.
Ergo, it cannot be contained to an arbitrary number, just like the way you can never ever name a price for a human relationship (friendship, parent-child). <-- (assuming you are not into human-trafficking)
Value should therefore also be timeless.
If the value of something can depreciate over time, then..... that would make the nature of that object's value rather low or superficial in the first place. (since it is liable to change over time)

Shouldn't true value be a constant?
Or maybe it should be an ever-increasing thing, kinda like the universe.
I don't know.

'The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance or preciousness of something' - google's def of value. Hmmm.... have to agree with this one. (for now)