Framing the Issue

One big aspect of the perception of money is Framing the Debate.

George Lakoff is a smart guy and writes good stuff some about framing.  That is my attempt at stating things more simply.  Working at it.

I am not so smart and write about things of which I know little.

Framing the Money Debate in terms of what money does...Economics... is a sure way to win by confusing the opponent.  What money does is its function.  Focus on function is a "Processing" frame.  The frame of choice for those that wish to hide the nature of the "Thing" that money is and certainly avoid or obviate any Frame of Debate regarding  what money is rather than what it does.

The labyrinth of what anything does, money not being any different, wanders off into a great number of things just like any other functional analysis.

In comparison, what money is an an object is relatively limited.  Like a car is an object of a collection of  objects that enables us to go many places with it and do many things.  The car itself that enables all of this has far fewer basic persistent components to with a far greater life span life than the trips we use it to take.

Little is to be learned about the car if all that is ever talked about is are the trips it takes us on (what it does).

Functional Decomposition of Money (what it does) is a sure bet Frame for winning if preservation (protection) of the current system is the objective.

Analysis of the Object structure of Money (what it is)  is a sure bet Frame for winning if changing to better system in the objective.

Tip to the "Functional Framers":  Never ever let money be framed as an Object Structure that by design facilitates function.  Even if that Object Structure is Debt Money because that is a loaded pre dispositon  to facilitate debt functons.

If money is viewed in a Debt Free Object Frame almost all is lost by those that benefit from a Debt Money structure.  Total loss of the game is when those that Frame Money in debt free terms change the name of the Money Object dropping all reference to the term debt.  Real Money.

The simple key is that for every function there is a related object.  Two objects in fact.  The input object and the output object.  It is simply the structure of out language.  When the dominant frame is functional it looks at the operative word, the functional word, the verb.  When the dominant frame at the noun that is the subject.  The input subject noun and then the noun that is a function of the process verb called the object noun (predicate nominative).  That is the fundamental trinity of language.

For every single process decomposition chart with big bold letter verbs between two objects there is (or can be but those that favor functional decomposition they probably either ignore or give second seat to) a corresponding object relationship chart where the objects are in big bold letters with a small verb in between them.  The objects tend to be persistent, slow to change, the verbs are more variable and subject to perhaps frequent change between between persistent objects.

Data lasts over time.  Processing is time dependent and variable and and programmed processing functions require more frequent change than data structures.  Therefore, data independence is something beneficial to the design and operation of a system.  This extraction of data from tight bundling with process facilitates an object oriented approach.

Many of the things that can be done with an subject object, the processing functions, applied to a subject object are methods of processing so frequently associated with the object that the process itself and how to do it has been assigned to the object as a behavior that it knows how to implement when a message is sent to the object that requires action by a method the object knows.

Object Oriented Systems are object driven systems, not process driven.  The logical chart presentation of the subject/function/object relationship is agnostic,  they all work together.  Selecting Function as the driver of the system to address a problem domain is both a lesser efficient and less productive approach.  Elevating function as a primary frame is only politically beneficial to whatever politics are playing in the problem domain.

The important Frame is what a thing is and what behaviors it knows how to to and if it does not own those behaviors then pass a message to an object that does and get the result for incorporation in a behavior it knows how to do.

That is the Object Oriented Frame.  By design it dominates the Functional Oriented Frame which by its nature can be used by design or by its inherent nature to sub-optimize a system or perpetuate a legacy failing sub-optimized system.  Like the Debt Money  Monetary System for Example.

This is the bottom line:

In the legacy monetary system we have today money is the object of a function.  In the fundamental conceptual trinity: Subject-Function-Object the Object:Money is created as a function without any derivation from a Subject in the three part relationship.  It is created out of nothing.   With nothing being the "absence of presence".  There was no Subject to give is some inherent properties as a child of that subject. It springs into existence as function of a process that enters a number in two accounts representing a contractual debt relationship.  Money goes back to nothing (non presence) when the contract is complete.

The Banking Business Model:  Always have open contracts in perpetuity to keep the business going and have a proprietary monopoly on the money creation/loan business.

In Object Oriented system there is a subject object from which money is derived that gives its encapsulated attributes to a child upon the function of creation.  The child of money lives forever once created.  Good as gold but it is digital.  (be sure to back up the digits).  In my design scheme digital money is born with a name (unique serial number) and a value (1).

Perhaps the money system of fractional reserve was exclusively a creation of functional analysis.  The object structure was all in the minds of the bankers that created it and they were not going to formally define that for anyone.  The banking secret.  In the information age object structure is defined, it has become the way to structure conceptual objects and the systems in in which that have functions.

The king object of the banking system is the Account with aggregate amounts of money in a balance sheet system and the Contract that establishes a debt relationship.  The bank has a use case for money.

Money itself, what money is and how it is brought into being must be distinct object class with distinct stake holder relationship.  If it is not designed this way there is too much built in moral hazard for the Banking and Financial system for the system to continue to operate in view of the lack of oversight.

Oversight must be built into the system structure not provided by regulators.  That is why we have three part government check and balances.  An object oriented model is the way to build that system.  Our form of government was built that way long before the concept had the tools and formal definitions that create our systems today.

The ancient banker designers of the money system that we still have today, still owned by the bankers must have had a clear and concise object model entirely in their head from which to produce the functional model of banking.  That model was not to be revealed.  If the American public ever knew....... Well, the object model is still hidden.  However, modern technology has created object modeling methods and object model structures.  Starting with primitive classes.  Methodology now reveals object class structure at lower levels of system design and programming as a pre-forming the structure to a format conducive to programming.

Object modeling is being applied to higher and higher enterprise modeling to restructure the organization of if necessary and gain more command and control of the enterprise.

Bankers are certainly not going to hire anyone to model their high level business enterprise!  The problems of the Depression were resolved by functional controls over what banks could and could not do.  Those functional controls were lifted and what remaining functional controls continued to apply were either not enforced or circumvented.

The way to control banks is to control high level object structures.  To define the properties and behavior of money independent of what banks or anyone else does with it.  In essence, take money itself away from banks.  Turn debt money into real money in a system managed under government control or government charter but not the FED.  A new entity that is responsible for what money is and maintenance of the money record object.  All users of the money can then use money for the functions it performs and through an accounting system inform the maintainer of the money object record of who is the current owner of the object unit money.  Money as an object has no attribute of debt in this system.  It only knows who at any given time is the owner of the money with a right to spend it by changing ownership to a new owner.  How any owner chooses to spend their money in their owners account is a lower level contractual matter like loan.