I have been interacting with people of various monetary dispositions for many years now, and all debates always boil down to this same question “Do you see money as a product?”
I’m passing this answer on to this group, in part because i´m collecting answers for a potential FAQ application; in part so we all are exposed to these answers. A set of related questions exists, all of which must be answered to give a good answer.
What is ¨Money¨
Most people can’t give you a good definition of money — a definition which holds; and a definition which serves them.
Yet if we ask the questions which develop a fully accountable answer, we readily arrive at a fact that the only definition of money which can inflict no offense whatever, is a currency which comprises immutable tokens of value.
In fact likewise, most people do intuit that money is a relatively immutable token of value — not understanding how the exceptions are engendered, or how the exceptions offend them. In other words, they recognize that immutability is a vital object; they likewise recognize that immutability of a promissory note is even vital to its facts of contractual obligation; but they do not recognize that one and one only monetary prescription makes good on this indispensable object of immutable tokenization of value.
Both to tokenize value and to immutably tokenize value nonetheless are only TO REPRESENT not only however many different products, but necessarily, to likewise represent the volumes of such products, or we fail to keep the ostensible 1:1 relationship between circulatory volume and remaining value of all products, which is necessary to immutable value.
The only way to immutably tokenize value therefore is if the units of value of the circulation are immutably linked to the remaining value of ALL represented property (not just to one or several of MANY products); and thus likewise, the remaining volume of units of circulation must at all times equal the volume of remaining value of all the products which the circulation is intended to represent, or we fail to keep these principles. In fact then, the only way to maintain these equal volumes is to pay the value of the represented property out of circulation as the value of the property is perceived to be consumed, or to depreciate. The only way you can do this of course, is if we pay monetary obligations comprised only of principal, at the rate of depreciation or consumption of all represented properties.
Volume of circulation must likewise equal remaining volume of all represented property. Franklin observed in his “Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency,” that the colonists prospered substantially more when they supplemented their circulation of precious metal with paper currency (certain implementations of which were debatably subject to interest). He postulated that some prospective extent of such supplementation might be excessive; and that it might have negative consequences. But nonetheless he noted (evidently then because they never reached such a limit) that the additional circulation of paper currency sustained substantially greater prosperity.
They must therefore have suffered previously from an effectively deflated circulation. But simple questions thus resolve Franklin’s curiosity:
If the circulation is to represent (tokenize) value, then if the circulation were ever to exceed the volume of the remaining value of all property, then someone would have received circulation for nothing. Such an excessive, “inflated” circulation however would be impossible, if in fact all promissory notes (of principal only) are legitimately collateralized.
Likewise however, if the effective volume of circulation is ever less than the volume of represented property, then it is impossible to trade all property all at once; and someone will not have received and persisted in just reward for their production.
So, an “effective,” just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of all production (“products”).
A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible.
1. The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property.
2. The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property.
3. Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property (subject to promissory obligations), the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency.
These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.
But our question asks if money is a product? Essentially, this is to ask if it MUST be a product in order to serve these vital purposes of a just currency, which of course must eradicate all potential for systemic offense.
We can see however, even on an abstract level, that the concept of tokenization can only go awry if the need for tokenization must account for all products, and the concept of tokenization requires A product or a few products to do so. Yet even according to the concept of tokenization itself, the token is distinct from the product itself — unless to be an immutable token of value, “money” must actually exist in the physical form or instances of some such “product.” In other words, if just/”honest” money is a product; how then and why would argue this restrictive concept of A product or products? How can either case serve the objects of volume equaling the volume of all products, if money “must” be a product or products; and if the volume of the product or products must yet equate to the volume of all products?
In fact, given the aforesaid observations, we readily recognize that nothing but all products can so represent all products; and the only reason folks like the Austrian “economists” are trying to insist on a product (or products) for their obfuscated claim to tokenization, is they refuse to acknowledge the very principles they pretend their one or few products somehow uphold — and yet are proven not to uphold.
As Franklin likewise observes, never did their precious metal monetary standards result in actual consistent values of money; and the reasons are evident in these principles: There is no perpetual 1:1:1 relationship between remaining circulation: remaining value of represented property: and obligation, because the Austrians refuse to recognize that the only mathematical course to this perpetual relationship is to pay off promissory notes comprising obligations of principal only, at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property — with the payments thus retiring the circulation as the value of the property itself is consumed. In fact, only promissory notes of principal, paid at this obligatory schedule of payment can accomplish these purposes; and do so even without regulation.
Thus we readily understand the problems of gold, which itself in fact perpetually violates our necessarily perpetual 1:1:1 relationship; and which further violates these principles when it coexists with interest, which perpetually disposes ever more of the circulation to servicing a perpetually multiplying sum of artificial debt — leaving ever less of the same circulation to sustain commerce.
Thus the answer to the original question is that money CANNOT BE A product, if it is to be an immutable token of value, because a product, in which the resultant circulation would ostensibly be redeemable, ITSELF cannot represent All products! Thus it cannot provide a perpetual 1:1 relationship between volume of circulation and redeemability which purportedly eliminates subversion of value.
Effectively, the Austrians (and others) claim virtues of gold which do not exist, while the principles they exalt instead would endorse only mathematically perfected economy, because the only currency which can accomplish this purpose of making the circulation effectively not a product, but in fact at all times ACTUALLY REDEEMABLE in ALL products, is mathematically perfected economy — which alone therefore, immutably tokenizes all products represented by the circulation, and in such a way that the circulation is always redeemable in the very scope and volume of products it was from the beginning, intended to represent.
So, an effective just circulation must at all times equal as close as possible the remaining value of all production/products. A further malady exists in the present disposition of currencies subject to interest. That is, ever more of a circulation is perpetually dedicated to sustaining ever greater sums of artificial debt, leaving ever less of the same circulation to represent/tokenize the value of property. Thus interest makes abiding by our necessary principles of immutable tokenization impossible. A – The only circulation which sustains all these necessary objects therefore is a volume of circulation which is at all times equal to the remaining value of all property. B – The only way to maintain such a circulation is to pay principal out of circulation at the rate of consumption or depreciation of related property. C – Thus as a circulation comprised of promissory notes only represents FINANCED property subject to promissory obligations, the only way to sustain a circulation which necessarily represents the remaining value of all property is to further accommodate immediate conversion of equity into currency. These in fact then are the principles of mathematically perfected economy; and this is a vital path of the logic of overall solution.