I wonder how much of this analysis you could do while entirely ignoring money itself. Just track all the non-monetary sides of all transactions that a person/corporation takes part in over the course of a year, or something like that. See what goods and services they provide other people, and what goods and services they got. Liquid money is just a way to defer this kind of transaction, so if you look at things over the right window (essentially, a time interval in which the person ends up with approximately the same amount of money she started with) then you'll see all the real economic contributions and extractions that the person made.
Of course, one thing that makes the entire concept of "fairness" in economic transactions extremely questionable is the fact that most interactions are not zero sum (which of course is related to the fact about the subjectivity of value that you started with). If we trade, and you end up gaining more value than I do through the trade, there's some sense in which the transaction was unfair to me, but if I still gain a lot of value, then there's another sense in which it wasn't unfair, especially if I gain more value than I would have in doing a similar transaction with other people.
Also, one big question that all of this discussion seems to avoid is the issue of externalities. If there are costs or benefits that accrue to people who don't have any say in whether or not the transaction takes place, then the transaction will be mispriced - this is what I see as the real role of government in a neoliberal economy, is internalizing the externalities so that transactions that cost third parties (like pollution) are discouraged and ones that benefit third parties (like education) are encouraged.
no subject
Of course, one thing that makes the entire concept of "fairness" in economic transactions extremely questionable is the fact that most interactions are not zero sum (which of course is related to the fact about the subjectivity of value that you started with). If we trade, and you end up gaining more value than I do through the trade, there's some sense in which the transaction was unfair to me, but if I still gain a lot of value, then there's another sense in which it wasn't unfair, especially if I gain more value than I would have in doing a similar transaction with other people.
Also, one big question that all of this discussion seems to avoid is the issue of externalities. If there are costs or benefits that accrue to people who don't have any say in whether or not the transaction takes place, then the transaction will be mispriced - this is what I see as the real role of government in a neoliberal economy, is internalizing the externalities so that transactions that cost third parties (like pollution) are discouraged and ones that benefit third parties (like education) are encouraged.