* Does value need a standard or a measure? No.

Value is a different thing to different people.*

So... yes, then? I mean, that's the whole point of money: allowing different people to express their preferences in a way that allows comparison. You don't need money to know whether you prefer apples or ice cream, but you do need to express your preferences in some way that lets stores know whether to stock more types of apple or more types of ice cream, and price is just the simplest way.

> There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society.

That's hand waving. Specify how you propose to achieve this.

That depends on how the person wishes to be rewarded (within reason) hence my previous comment about how "value" differs per person.

At a concrete, legal level, suppose that I as a software developer wish to be paid in money for my time working on software, and not on client projects, what do you propose? And if I write books?

What is the legal framework you are proposing that would ensure that I would be paid a "fair" price for my work? What if my work is brilliant and millions love it? What if it's shit, and no one would pay me a dime for it? Who judges?

Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work.

If there is not a "fair value" then it probably shouldn't be being done. If it's for personal interest, don't expect a fair value for it.

People expect and somehow manage to get money at the moment for shit which is the problem.

When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first.

"Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work."

Yeah no. We want money so that we have the fluidity of choosing a candy bar one day and a vacation another. Besides, you can't have someone offer you fractions of a vacation for your work. Is it truly that difficult to see where barter systems fail?

Besides, you are putting too much faith in the "fair value" idea. First off, when you want something and you barter with someone, a common technique is to disparage the quality of the item you desire. Why? To convince someone else that it isn't worth as much, that a "fair value" is less than that. Then, take the example of a mom-and-pop shop making jams and jellies. They probably have a lot of pride in their work and the price reflects their feelings of craftsmanship. They say, "Look at how good it is! How fresh, how pure!" -- they are trying to convince you that it is worth more than you initially appraised it at.

It's a conflict of interest -- it is in the best interest of the consumer to pay as low as he can, and it is in the best interest of the producer to get as much as he can. One seeks to minimize losses, the other, maximize profits.

Ever heard of donation-based bagel shops? You pay "what you think it is worth". Some people drop $5, others drop $0.01 because they want food and don't really want to pay for it. Even being glared at (social pressure) isn't enough to stop them.

The moral of the story is that people suck and asking them to "be fair" is a hilariously misguided way of getting revenue.

"When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first."

Yes, they can decide on a value, and so can the producer. If the values match or can be negotiated, you have an exchange. If they don't, then there is no exchange. Eco 101?

I want the things I can exchange money for: food, housing, gadgets, bicycles, cars, stuff for my family, vacations, and so on.

Edit: I'll add the most important one, too: time. I like my job, I like coding, but I also like to do things like ride my bike, spend time with my kids, and so on. The more money I have, the more I can choose to do those things (simplifying a lot).

You have missed a bit there. The less responsibility you have, the more time you have. You are paying to lose some of your artificial responsibility. Cut some of the middle-man out (money) and some real responsibility and the net effect is the same. Less things, less ownership, less dependency.

What with two children, I can assure you that my responsibility is anything but artificial. And no, I don't think I'm going to give them up anytime soon.

Now, do you have something concrete to discuss or not?

I have two children too. They are the only non-artificial responsibility.

The simplest way to do that is to reward that person with money, which the person may latter exchange for whatever is "valuable" to him.

Until the seller decides to monopolise the valuable items (Monsanto).