This still doesn’t make sense.

Since everyone values emotions differently... there would still need to be some intermediary, like money, for emotions to have any agreed upon value at all beyond narrow circles.

Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?

I like the idea.

With money, we can value emotions. Since everybody has some money, everybody's emotions (outside of children) will have positive value.

Relating to my original example:

I, as a provider of PII, feel scared about my information being sold. If Google has a $100/year option to stop my PII from being spread, I would consider buying it.

However, I predict now some people feel angry. They feel Google should not be allowed to do this. They won't pay Google to stop, they will go to the govt.

Considering this problem, I wonder what is the next step we would need to do to ensure a world of positive emotions and money.

> Otherwise what’s stopping, e.g. nihlists, from valuing your emotions at zero or a negative value?

Well, I think a lot of people value my emotions negatively, especially angry people and corporations. In particular, corporations like to take money and make it time consuming for me to get a refund.

As for people, I am at peace because I cannot change my skin color, face, or personality, but I can adjust my goals to be smaller/non-overlapping.

"The only way to understand emotions correctly is through money" What a take.