"and your deliberately reductive, absolutist argumentation style is intellectually dishonest. (See my other comment on zero-sum, which you falsely asserted all commerce is against demonstrable, clear fact)."

You overcomplicate basic concepts. The value of an object is what it takes to create it, not the amount society wishes to pay for it. In an economy without waste it would directly hit this value. The problem is that in markets either too much or too little is created, because people are always in search of profit. You speak of this problem from a capitalist standpoint and refuse to see it from any other.

Humans produce only have the ability to produce so many resources. A single person only produces so much value. If this value, measured in the amount of labor it takes to produce (this is the only real measurement of value), is not matched the worker is gaining more than he produces or less. Profit can only come out of labor. This means with profit it is impossible for the worker to get everything he produces. In other words there is only so much labor, and it is split between the ruling class and the workers who produce it. This fits neatly into the definition of zero sum.

Opportunities do not affect the value of labor, only the price. From a value standpoint this makes the relationship authoritarian and oppressive.

I never argued about price, just value. You are the one being deliberately reductive. We are debating economics so we must find the value that connects all systems, not reduce it to a neo-liberal economic ideal.