Your argument is not really an argument, but merely the statement of the assumption that value (in general) and monetary value are the same thing. It is hard t

Your argument is not really an argument, but merely the statement of the assumption that value (in general) and monetary value are the same thing. It is hard to define value in general (and I cannot do it) simply because unlike money, there is no clear way of numerical measurement. It may be tempting for technical folks to believe otherwise, but things can matter very much even when they are not easily measured numerically. So why is your assumption incorrect? The fact that different market institutions lead to different outcomes given the same underlying preferences of individuals is really enough to show this. If you can keep the same set of people with the same set of beliefs and preferences, but obtain different prices merely by changing the market institutions, then this means that the prices do not accurately reflect the underlying value (in the general sense). Yes, money is an extremely useful proxy for "value to society", but it is only a proxy. Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that tomorrow, your city council decides to put more money into work making the city more beautiful. More people will be paid to tend to municipal gardens, among other things. Does this mean that suddenly, society values a beautiful city more? Did preferences change over night? I would argue that it is the other way around: Society has always valued a beautiful city more, but the existing market institutions did not translate this valuation into monetary terms. People noticed the discrepancy and effected political change to bring the money in line with underlying valuations. The belief that "the market" is this objective institution is very widely spread today. This is unfortunate, because "the market" is not a fixed thing. Market institutions can be changed via politics, and those in power use that fact for their own benefit. I would be so happy if more people recognized that the assumption you stated is really part of an ideology and should be treated as such: potentially useful at times, but not a universal truth.