At a certain point in that line of reasoning, the "value" becomes nothing but "satisfaction in knowing you did something nice for someone else." It's something people value, but to put it in terms of a market transaction misses the point by a wide margin.
Your initial argument rested on the (reasonable) assumption that people value lots of things in addition to money.
Do you really want to argue that people don't trade non-monetary value?
Or, does your "loosely" argument rest on how you think that I've twisted "of"?
You say "semantic" like it's meaningless....