Metphysics of Money

Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism writes a preface to the subject title of this post that says she does not readily relate to what she subsequently presents by DR Paul Tyson via Yanis Varoufakis blog.  I think see sees a pony under a big pile and presents it for the sake of discussion to see what others may see in it.

Others see a variety of things as displayed by their comments at Yves site as well a Yanis site.

Comments range from:

Prof Tyson’s article is the sort of hot air I expect from a theologian.

to

"Your concluding questions are profound ones, but I think your implied answers are quite wrong"

to

"A system of money based on debt-contracts that serve as tradable assets in capital markets will never accomplish our public purpose."

So much confusion about money that it undermines discussion.  Junetown made some good comments but I find few other comments under that name on the web.  Sometimes  I run into comments by anonymous commenter's that make me wish that we could talk with each other.

I call it all "Confusion Money"  It will never end until money is debt free, with no counter party liability as the foundation of its creation and is defined as an currency object with unique identity that therefore represents exactly what it is distinct from all that it does or is used to do.

The shift must be this:

From what money " is" and that currently a negative money currency (function of debt relationship without which it does not come into existence)

To positive money currency (positive existence not related to debt) and clear distinction that debt (buying positive money with a promise) is only one of the things that positive money "does" in the function of medium of exchange besides buy candy bars.

In summary, some talked about what money (and all related things) was, some talked about money in the present world, some talked about what money should be.  Some had the view that what money was established the nature of what it is now and will be.  Some needed to explain what it is now in fact (MMT) as opposed to the popular belief of what it is/does.  Some see an new idea of what it should be. 

I really do not care much about the historical origins of money and what it means the nature of money in the world today like it was a study of the Origin of the Species.  That is nature.  Money is a social concept construction that has little to do with natural law dictates. 

I really do care about a new concept of what money is and what it does and the unbindling of those two things which is essentially unbinding money from debt.