Hardly. People do all sorts of things because they value the experience. Not because others do.
They may make what they create available to others, and others may or may not value it. And even if others do value it, there is no need to compensate the person who created it, because that person did not do it for others, they did it for themselves, or their family or friends… or just ‘the common good’ (like open software).
If you want to look at orchids, do a search and there will be more photos than you can see in a lifetime. Which are the best? No idea. But in time AI will probably work it out :) Then you won’t have to pay or search… you’ll just be presented with a graded photo wall, from best to worst that you can scan. If that is what you want. But that is all just another side issue.
The problem remains, how do people with no access to money get access to the resources they need to live a decent life?
Are you saying that I have to decide who should get how much? I’ve better things to do, even if it was remotely possible, which it isn’t.
I believe that people have to make their own choices in life… but they need the means to express this choice.
By paying UBI to everyone and letting them earn more, I don’t change the ‘ranking’ of people I simply lift the floor. Each person can then decide how much extra they want to earn (subject to their capacity to do so).
You still haven’t answered how you would deal with the problem of proving for people who have no money: the young, old, incapacitated, their unpaid carers and those who lack the skills required by the market.
I agree that the market can solve the problem… as long as everyone has money to ‘play’ in the market.
You say that markets will solve it without providing money to those who don’t have it… but you still haven’t explained how.