Human and market
Human or market?
The price of goods and the worth of labour can be formed in the market, but it is always as well formed in the mind of a human unrelated to the market. So the justification of money happens always in varying degrees. Because the justification is inevitable it is interesting to study when and how it happens.
You could argue that the market affects everything in a butterfly- or a dominoeffective way and thus state that the justification of money is actually a market value. This is true but so it is the other way: The justification of money always affects the market value. What is really a market then?
If you go deep enough, you will realise, that the difference of 'market' and 'human justification', is only a difference in the words but in a very important way it is only in the words. When we say that the market commands the value, what we really say is: " The value should not be thought of right now but to let be formed in a coincidental way". When we say that value is a result of the process of justification, we say: " Human rationalises the worth of things, thus rationalising life in general"
Now you might have a familiar concept pop in your mind and ask: Does this mean that the concept of 'rational choice modeling' is true, or logical to 'justification of money'. The answer is no, yes and no.
Firstly no: That concept is talking about choices made in a market situation. So not the value of things everywhere also outside of market.
Then yes: You could bend and use the concept in the 'real' economy (based on justification of money) since that economy does not start from the axiom of value forming only in the market. Then you could merge choice and value into something very similar.
In the end no: The semantics are very different. The 'rational choice' models human making the best choices considering the increase in money. Since it is a model it is not really interested in the fallacy of the rationality, it is only mapping out the possible scenarios of a good participator in markets. The human 'rationalising the justification' of money is not about making the best choices and it is not really a model but a founding axiom from the observation of a complex reality.
In the end the difference is only in the words but the effect to life and progress is grande. Since money is not a physical constant but a thing very much controlled and created by a human, it means that when 'science' (marketeconomy science) of said money preaches us the concept of market value, it really just preaches us into thinking less (laissez-faire), thus achieving less progress. If the science becomes the real science of economy (with the core of 'justification of money') it changes its direction very much by saying that the human is always behind the value and so the human can steer things into a smarter path. This path could and very probably would also result in a growing economy (for example. a nation participating the global market).