Money "Measure" vs Money "Property"

By Marc Gauvin (c) 15/2/2014

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

Is money your property?  Or is money just a reference to the value of your "property" to facilitate its trade with a broad array of other people's "property" that could compensate in equivalent value.

Essentially,  any properties attributed to "money" other than that of an abstract measure of the value of concrete "measurable" goods and services, influences and therefore skews its sine qua non function of measure.  You cannot condition measure to the relative availability of the unit used to measure.  Any notion of requiring an "appropriate circulation" of money is an implicit recognition of a limited "supply" which is nonsensical for money to act as a measure.   And money that is not a measure, is meaningless and certainly not of the stature of natural or logical law and therefore unenforceable in legal contracts,  precisely because an objective standard for evaluating is missing and "Justice" becomes a matter of opinion rather than reason.

The confusion arises because of the relationship between the measure, debt and credit ability.   The problem is a common slight of hand that represents another of the plethora of logical inconsistencies around the current common core notion of "money".   Basically,  the fallacy goes like this:

You borrow units of money to buy goods and services and therefore you owe money. 

The problem is that if money is a measure then you can't "borrow" measure because measure is not anyone's property it is a common notion shared equally by all that we all have access to.  So what is really going on?  Well a coherent notion would be:

You borrow goods and services of value MEASURED in units of money and you owe GOODS AND SERVICES of equivalent value MEASURED in those units. 

In this light, money is not your property but a place holder for your property until such time in the future you receive what was someone else's property in compensation. Money is not trust it is a result of acts of trust and nothing can destroy community trust more than fiddling with people's measure of value.  Therefore,  wherever you find your self on the political spectrum,  if your proposal involves controlling the money supply you are wittingly or unwittingly undermining trust in the community.

As we point out here,  to measure and record measures there is absolutely no requirement for any circulation of any object logical or physical.  But rather, money is necessarily a data output of the transaction of goods and services and each instance of measure, must be a unique output of a unique particular and independent transaction with its unique measure of value.   Making money a supply to enable transactions,  is making money an input rather than an output and as pointed out in the link this is simply logically absurd.

Additional information