Securitzation is Illegal

Almost everything I write on this blog addresses the question of what the conceptual thing called money is not what money does and once what money is has a definition then what should money be doing. 

What money is currently not only permits but facilitates the problem caused by application of money to do things.  There are only two fundamentals about money:  What it is and what it does.  If the application of what money is today gives undesirable results, (I let the results stand for themselves) and accepting the proposition that a conceptual thing does what the thing is designed to be (just like a natural physical thing) then what is necessary is to change the conceptual nature of money to produce a beneficial result (lessen or eliminate the adverse result) as a function of what the new concept of money is.

So:  I will write something about the negative aspect of what money does currently as a function of what is.  This is based on an entry in Karl Denninger's blog "Market Ticker" titled "Securitization is Illegal" authored by Michael Nwogugu.  It is  complex explanation, but evidently well supported by references and displaying the detailed structure of what securitization is and does.

This is the Wikipedia definition of "Securitization"

While the nature of the concept of what money is remains my focus, Securitization is a thing that does some thing that is a step removed from money as a conceptual thing that has some aspects of an object oriented child relationsip to the Parent Class "Money" in that it inherits some of the attributes and methods of the parent class.  On the other hand it may stand on its own sharing attributes and methods of Money which obviously concludes that Money and Securities are both children of a Parent class called XXX Super class????

Money is a medium of value exchange where the object thing exchanged has a dollar value related to it.  The thing exchanged can be any thing.  A conceptual thing as well as a physical thing.  A conceptual thing like a right, an obligation, etc.  It appears that although Securitization is a small step removed from money itself and may be functionally used as money is used, I will treat it as just another thing that is exchanged for money, is not money but shares some attributes and methods of money at a higher level that is perhaps up at the primitive level of object barter that does not involve the intermediate role of money as a medium of exchange but the barter transaction has associated money features in that it it value exists in that whatever is securitized to the extent "makes money" as a result of a barter that exchanges two things of equal value??? I will have to think about this one!  What are the two things involved other than money?

Barter seems to fit as a Parent Superclass of both Money and Securitization.  For that matter Finance, which also  has shared  attributes and methods aspects might also be viewed as a child of Barter Superclass.  I like the idea because before there was money there was barter.  Trade in the absence of money.

That is a long intro to expressing some thoughts on the referenced link to "Securitization is Illegal"!!!!

Now that I have at least established for myself where the concept of Securitization might fall in relationship to Money, its illegal aspects and how my concept of debt free real digital money might resolve illegal aspects of Securitization  I will do a follow on blog entry expressing some thoughts about it.