Money Is a Stock- Account is a flow

There is a discussion at New Economic Perspectives.  It is a comment by Eric that is so entrenched in a counterproductive meme of money as a metaphor for a flow that produces energy as a function of flow in a stock/flow concept that I just have to address as a fallacious unproductive way of looking at money in my opinion. 

Money is the stock not the flow.  The flow is in owning accounts.  That is where the work of money is done. 

I did not make a reply comment but these are a couple I started on:

Eric:
I understand your perception of money.  It can also be viewed using an alternate perception.  For the sake of argument let's just make it two diametric views:  Money is a flow or money is a stock.  Digital money.

Money as a flow goes from account to account.  Money does not have existence unless it is related to an account.  If it is not in an account then where is it?  In that state of non-existence at a higher level waiting to be called into existence in an account.  It only flows and works as long as it is an account.  The account is the stock like a battery  in which the flow power of money does work as it passes through to another account.

Money as a stock with accounts flowing through it is the diametric view.  Money becomes the fixed stock, accounts that own a fixed unit of money are flowing through that unit.  The unit of money holds the account as its owner for some period of time then that same unit holds a new owner account as a function of a transaction.  The power is in the movement flow of accounts, not the flow of money.

This is a paradigm shift.  Which should be the fixed thing and which the variable?  Money or account?  What produces the energy, the capacity to do work as it moves from one fixed thing to another (flow)?    Is it the movement or flow of money from fixed account to fixed account?  Or:  Is it the change of current account ownership of a single fixed unit of money to new variable account ownership?    When current account relationship becomes a prior relationship then it ceases to exist? 

Subsequent shorter version: ( not by much)

Money is a conceptual creation thing.   That fact gives us the opportunity to extract its logical relationships and functions and manipulate them independent of their tightly bound or absolutely bound physical relationship or metaphor.   That is why money is digital now.  More logical than physical when it was paper or gold and had associated physical constraints (that some may long for). 

Currently,   a financial bank account is a fixed record pre-existing the money in it.   Money flows as transaction sums from account to account and cannot exist except in relation to an account.   Money moves at the macro level, while it exists,  from one unique account to another in lump sum totals until it is extinguished by loan payment because it was debt created out of nothing in the first place.  Accounts it may have been in (related to) at any previous time live on.

An alternate money system:  Money is the fixed record at the lowest unit level (dollar for example) and the owning account is associated with on a one to one basis is the variable record  that changes as a function of replacing the current owner account relationship to a new owner account relationship.