tl;dr I am arguing that the value which is created (or realised) from trade is equally as valid as value created from the production of resources or services, and that it is a mistake to only consider physical goods or actual services provided as "value".

Let me quantify what I mean by "value" here. By "value" I mean the economic concept of surplus. I assume you already know what that means but for the reader's benefit, surplus is the difference between what an actor values a resource at and what they had to give up to obtain that resource.

All resources are inherently created by labour. In that, you are right. Labour creates initial value. But most of the surplus that exists in the economy is a result of trade. Trading the resource with others makes the resource more valuable as it passes to people who value it more and more.

Let's just start with labour as a resource. Everyone possesses hours of their time as a resource. And for most people, their time isn't inherently worth much to themselves (i.e. people generally would much rather work and be paid at least a little bit than to be unemployed without money), so finding a job at the Pokémon factory and working for wages generates a large amount of surplus.

An hour labour might convert $100 worth of cardstock into 100 packs of Pokémon cards. You get paid $30 for this labour, which is a large surplus to you because you would be much, much happier with the $30 than to sit around at home for an hour, especially knowing you can do this trade 40 times weekly. But what value is generated here? The value of a resource is determined, in economics, by the amount of utility that whoever owns it derives from having it. You have traded away your hour of labour. Perhaps you would only value that hour at $5 (i.e. you would be happier with the hour at home than $4.99, and you would be happier with $5.01 than the hour at home), so you have generated $25 worth of surplus for yourself by trading your hour. On the other hand, the Pokémon Company knows it can make a tidy profit on the results of your labour (the Pokémon cards), so maybe it values the labour at $50, and then banks a $20 surplus by trading its money for your labour.

But nonetheless, the product of that labour is inherently worthless from an intrinsic standpoint, and the Pokémon Company obviously derives no intrinsic utility from it. All the utility from it comes from knowing it can be resold. So when it sells those cards to a retail store for $300, it is creating nearly $170 in surplus (subtracting off the $100 in paper and $30 in labour to avoid double-counting). This surplus wasn't derived from labour; not meaningfully so, anyway. The amount of work involved here is nominal compared to the surplus generated from the mere fact that a trade occurred.

All this extra surplus is what makes people feel richer. And the lack of this trade makes people feel poorer. The underlying physical goods are worth nothing if they stay with people who don't value them. A country could produce ten times more rice and would still be poorer if that rice fails to find its way to the hungry people who value it most. The rice farmer doesn't derive utility from hoarding a hundred tonnes of rice. They do not derive happiness from it. That happiness, that surplus, is only made real when the rice gets into the possession of the people who want to eat it. So trading a kilogram of it to their neighbour is what creates this value. It turns a resource which was nearly worthless to its previous owner into a resource which is highly desired and worth far more to someone else.