More on the Money PSYOP

"Store" vs "Record"

By Marc Gauvin (c) 7/12/2013

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

It has come to my attention that there is further need to clarify the semantic wobble if you will, between the precise meanings of “record of value” and “store of value”. The relevance of making this distinction lies in how epistemologically speaking, “store of value” represents a false rationale for the treatment of money as a commodity while the term “record of value” precludes such an error, yet provides for all required allocation of value over time.

If we are to use language in a serious and formal fashion commensurate with the importance of any system that has such ubiquitous impact on all of us,  as do money systems, m
aking this distinction clear is obligatory. It is entirely understandable that colloquially we use superficially similar terms interchangeably, however in a serious formal and scientific context, such colloquial vagueness simply is not acceptable for obvious reasons, making it necessary for the more precise to trump the less precise. 

Store of Value

When we state that money is a “store of value” we are literally saying that money is a recipient that receives and contains value that is “stored” in it, this also implies that the “store” can be emptied.  Therefore, money when “filled” with “value” now becomes a negotiable instrument because it no longer points to a value but actually contains the value that went in and that it now holds.  Also, “store of value” necessarily implies a measure of "value", without which it is meaningless.

Record of a Measure of Value

When we say that money is a “record of value”, we are simply saying that money is a testament to a quantity (measure) of value but not that money holds any of the value it attests to.  Thus, none of the connotations associated with the term “store of value” are conjured up other than measure. Most importantly, measure can never be a commodity.

Which is Most Accurate?

Given that it is physically impossible for the value of goods and services to be arbitrarily duplicated, which is precisely why standard accounting exists specifically to avoid such as it would otherwise constitute fraud,  It is evident that if physical goods and services retain their inherent value within them then money cannot receive that value from them.  Simply put, if money acquires value from outside, which it must for it to be a “store”, then either a duplication of value takes place or value would have to be correspondingly emptied from the goods and services into the money, which is absurd.  

Whereas if we speak in terms of a “record of value”,  no such nonsense can come about as the object of measure retains its inherent value while money simply acts as an annotation of that value.  Thus and in this case, commodity value remains in the physical goods and services or that which consumes them, contrary to what is required in order for the term “store of value” to have legitimate meaning.

So, we can be assured that the term “record of value” is accurate in its association with the value of the goods and services it represents and presents no conflict or confusion, while the use of the term “store of value” in its literal sense supports connotations that are not only impossible but are unnecessary i.e. record of value is sufficient to justly allocate equivalent value over time. 

Colloquially and in a sort of very loose allegory, we attribute the notion of “store” to what is really only a record because of the convention that recognises that value given begets the right to redeem equivalent value in the future.  But taking such a colloquial use of language to supplant more accurate and precise terms is not becoming of serious science.

The ontological error that we point out at is that money cannot be both a measure of value and a commodity of negotiable value, in fact nothing can be both things by definition, that people habitually repeat this error does not render it valid.   

Additional information