What is Money? - Sep 2, 2025

[Clete]

Wikipedia does a pretty good job on this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money



Notice that there is NO mention of the effort involved in obtaining it.

You're argument commits a stolen concept fallacy.

Any mention of "exchange" or "value" implies "effort involved in obtaining it".

@Clete You continue to confuse WHAT money is with how people typically OBTAIN money.

I think you know that I'm not capable of making such an error. If you really think I am, you need to rethink it. I flatly am not making that error.

 

[Right Divider]

You can just keep on repeating this all you like, it is NOT true! Subjective does not mean arbitrary.

I never claimed that "subjective" means "arbitrary".

Nor is it even relevant to the main argument I'm making which is that the value of thing is tied to the effort it takes to produce or acquire.

The VALUE OF A THING is NOT what MONEY is.

You continue to conflate WHAT money is with what it TAKES TO OBTAIN it.

Over and out.

 

[Clete]

I never claimed that "subjective" means "arbitrary".

Not overtly, you didn't.

The VALUE OF A THING is NOT what MONEY is.

I didn't say it was. Money is what represents that value, it is what takes the place of something else of equal value (to both the purchaser and seller). That's why gold works as real money and so long as everyone using it agrees, that's why fiat currencies work for as long as they work. If there is no exchange of value for value (or the promise of such), what has happened is theft. Money is meaningless apart from value. Value is meaningless apart from productive work.

You continue to conflate WHAT money is with what it TAKES TO OBTAIN it.

Flat out, I do not.

Over and out.

Why is it that you refuse to answer the question I've asked a half dozen times.

I never pegged you for being one who would refuse to budge an inch off even the most mundane of issues. I mean this is seriously basic economics 101 level stuff I'm saying here.

Is it me? Are people just cemented into the things they believe because I'm the one challenging them on it? I seriously do not get it.

 

[RobM_456]

Money is a means of exchanging one persons time for another. But who's name is on the coin? Even in or day, Cesar still owns all the money.

 

[RobM_456]

You're argument commits a stolen concept fallacy.

Any mention of "exchange" or "value" implies "effort involved in obtaining it".

I think you know that I'm not capable of making such an error. If you really think I am, you need to rethink it. I flatly am not making that error.

Not necessarily. Money that is inherited carries value from other people who worked for it.

 

[7djengo7]

Money is a means of exchanging one persons time for another. But who's name is on the coin? Even in or day, Cesar still owns all the money.

Caesar's been dead for a couple thousand years. And surely you don't actually think Caesar owned all the money, even in his day, do you? Do you think Henry Ford owns all the Mustangs because his name is on them?

 

[Clete]

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. Indeed, by definition. There is no economic value apart from production.

Money that is inherited carries value from other people who worked for it. (emphasis added)

So how do you say one sentence and then openly contradict it in the next sentence and then think that the contradiction supports the first sentence?

In an honest economy, value is exchanged for value by voluntary mutual consent for mutual benefit. Anything else is theft. If money represents something other than value, then it too is a form of theft.

So, the question is, what creates value? Right Divider is saying, in so many words, that its entirely subjective and that value is whatever someone decides it is for any reason or for no reason at all. This is just not so, but I've failed to find the words to convince him otherwise and we've reached an impasse.

I'm going to take a different tack in an attempt to break the impasse. I'm going to come at it from a strictly logical, almost syllogistic angle and see if that doesn't get the point to penetrate...

First let's define "value". A value is that which one acts to gain or to keep.

Is value subjective? Yes, but not entirely. It is anchored to production, to how easy or difficult a value is to gain or to keep (or replace).

So, taking it step by step...

1. A thing cannot be valued until it exists.
2. A thing cannot exist unless it is produced.
3. Therefore, all value presupposes production.

Now, while the perception of value may differ from person to person, that perception can only occur after production has taken place. You can’t value what does not exist.

Further...

1. The harder it is to produce something, whether because of time, skill, rarity, or effort, the less abundant it is.
2. The less abundant something is, the more valuable it tends to be in trade (exceptions to this prove the rule).
3. Therefore, production difficulty affects perceived value even in subjective terms.

Lastly...

1. Even if people value different things for different reasons, they only do so within the framework of what is available, and what is available is determined by what can be produced.

So yes, value is subjective, but subjective value depends on objective production. Perceptions are subjective but production is an absolute. A bar of steel has either been produced or it does not exist. That production costs the producer time and talent, which, if he values his life, he isn't going to expend for nothing. If he cannot receive something in exchange for what's it's cost him to produce the steel then he's going to stop expending his time and talent (i.e. his life) producing it.

Thus, it requires that others value the result of his productive efforts sufficiently to compensate him for that production such that he has incentive to continue producing. The more steel he produces, the easier it gets for him to produce it and the easier it gets for his customers to acquire it and thus the value per unit drops for both the producer and the consumer. Not because of causeless whim or mindless personal opinion, but because of the objective reality of production!

To detach perceived value from production is to pretend that people could value non-existent assets and trade them, which is why I was telling Right Divider that he is - unknowingly - attempting to define value in terms of it's negation. You cannot value that which cannot be acquired nor can you keep that which you do not have. The non-existent is of no value and that which exists was made by someone who is it's first rightful owner by virtue of the fact that they produced it at the cost of their time and effort (i.e. at the cost of a portion of their life). Thus, life is the basis for private property rights and the source of that properties value both to the producer and the consumer.

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete It may be that we are both just talking past each other. Let me try a different angle.

• Effort can create value (particularly productive effort).
• Not all value is created by effort (some value is purely subjective).
• Not all effort creates value (eg. dig a hole and fill it back in... lots of effort; no value).
• Money represents the value and not the effort (though some value may be created by productive effort).

A painting that is purchased for a $1 million and later sells for $100 million did not increase in value through effort. It is valued subjectively. The type of person that buys such things typically has lots of money and values the money (and the painting) differently from someone with far less money.

 

[RobM_456]

Caesar's been dead for a couple thousand years. And surely you don't actually think Caesar owned all the money, even in his day, do you? Do you think Henry Ford owns all the Mustangs because his name is on them?

In biblical terms, Caesar is the government who issues the currency . . . they own the currency and even have laws about how you can use it. They own the physical currency. All currency is owned by the authority who issues it and this is why all value flows to the issuer of the currency. Users of a currency hold it as a temporary store of value. Sales tax shows the ownership hierarchy. The reason the goverment can charge you sales tax when you use $ is because they own the $ and they cannot charge you tax if you sell something in stones or bricks.

When Jesus says that John the Baptist is Elijah, he is saying he is the 'type' and has the purpose of Elijah. I'm using the same metaphorical language with the name Ceaser as in [Insert local government] that has the same function in our lives.

When we apply this same logic to the currency of the Kingdom of God we see that our souls were purchased for a price, paid for by Jesus in his blood. The currency is the soul, it was issued by God, but satan made a claim, and then Jesus paid the price to redeem us back to God.

 

[7djengo7]

In biblical terms, Caesar is the government who issues the currency

By your word "currency," are you referring to money? I ask, because, in your earlier post to which I replied, you had said "money," and had not said "currency". You said someone you call "Cesar" "owns all the money":

Even in or day, Cesar still owns all the money.

So, I asked you about what you had said about money:

And surely you don't actually think Caesar owned all the money, even in his day, do you?

Oddly, I don't find you so much as once saying "money" in your reply to that post of mine.

Do you own any money? Yes or No? If you say you own some money, while having also said someone you call "Cesar" owns all money, then you've therein said "Cesar" owns all the money you also say you own. That seems kind of strange to me.

Sales tax shows the ownership hierarchy.

What do you mean by "the ownership hierarchy"?

The reason the goverment can charge you sales tax when you use $ is because they own the $

You can be taxed for using the dollar-sign? Someone owns the dollar-sign?

Cesar still owns all the money.

In biblical terms, Caesar

the name Ceaser

Are you using "Cesar," "Caesar," and "Ceaser" as synonyms?

 

[7djengo7]

When we apply this same logic to the currency of the Kingdom of God we see that our souls were purchased for a price, paid for by Jesus in his blood. The currency is the soul, it was issued by God, but satan made a claim, and then Jesus paid the price to redeem us back to God.

What do you mean by "satan made a claim"? What "claim" are you claiming "satan lmade"?

"Jesus paid the price": what price, and to whom?

And, since you say "the currency is the soul," are you saying "Jesus paid the price" in souls? It kind of sounds like you're trying to say Jesus forked over some souls (whose?) to pay some "price" to Satan.

 

[RobM_456]

By your word "currency," are you referring to money? I ask, because, in your earlier post to which I replied, you had said "money," and had not said "currency". You said someone you call "Cesar" "owns all the money":

So, I asked you about what you had said about money:


Oddly, I don't find you so much as once saying "money" in your reply to that post of mine.

Do you own any money? Yes or No? If you say you own some money, while having also said someone you call "Cesar" owns all money, then you've therein said "Cesar" owns all the money you also say you own. That seems kind of strange to me.


What do you mean by "the ownership hierarchy"?


You can be taxed for using the dollar-sign? Someone owns the dollar-sign?




Are you using "Cesar," "Caesar," and "Ceaser" as synonyms?

I can't believe you actually want to converse with someone this way. May God help you. I'm here to have a little friendly christian fellowship, not debate the basic meaning of English words and basic points of faith and life. My comment stands on it's own. It says what I meant for it to say.

The dollar bills printed in the USA belong to the government, even when you hold them. This is a basic fact. It's not even something worth talking about. How can you find entertainment in this? Defacing currency like dollars and coins is illegal for the reason that you don't own them. You own things that you have an official deed or document that has notary. You own a car or house when you have the legal contract. You don't own money because there is no contract. it is state governed, hence sales tax.

The wisdom in this, is to understand that since you don't ever own money, there is no sense chasing it. The value of money is only expressed when it is used. And when it is used it is taxed by the company that owns it.

Do you not have the ability to enjoy the subtlety of metaphor and all the various shades of meaning provided by our language. Is everything a dominance contest?

 

[7djengo7]

I can't believe you actually want to converse with someone this way.

"This way"? You mean, by way of asking you questions you can't answer about things you chose to write?

May God help you.

To become sanctimonious and take God's Name in vain, like you?

I'm here to have a little friendly christian fellowship,

If/when you get past your pompousness phase?

not debate the basic meaning of English words

That's you admitting that even you know you would only embarrass yourself by trying to answer the questions I asked you about your use of certain verbal forms you chose to write.

and basic points of faith and life.

"Basic points of faith and life" that you'd like everyone else to also refer to as "basic points of faith and life" in unquestioned unison with you, so that you won't feel so down on yourself for your inability to justify your calling them "basic points of faith and life".

My comment stands on it's own.

If so, then lucky for it! 'cause clearly you're not up to the task of standing up on its behalf.

It says what I meant for it to say.

It doesn't say anything. Comments don't say things; people say things. But, as you exemplify, sometimes people say things without meaning anything by what they say.

The dollar bills printed in the USA belong to the government,

Belong to we the people, you mean? Well, I'm one of we the people, so, like you're sayin', here, the dollar bills printed in the USA that belong to me, belong to me.

even when you hold them.

I suppose you must feel deep, agonizing guilt if you have even a single dollar bill in your pocket, then. When are you going to "give back" the dollar bill(s) you "hold," saying they "belong to" someone who is not you?

This is a basic fact.

Hearing people assert things and then merely reassert them in a shorthand way, by saying things like, "This is a basic fact," always tickles me. At best, it is as pointful as when drug-addled rock/pop vocalists sing things like, "Yes, I do!" right after singing something like, "I love you, baby!" It's really just emotive.

It's not even something worth talking about.

LOL @ you shooting down your own claim by saying your own claim is not even worth talking about.

How can you find entertainment in this?

In what?

 

[7djengo7]

You don't own money

Well, it's true that I don't own all money; I don't own the money someone else owns. But I do, indeed, own some money: viz., I own the money that I own.

You own things that you have an official deed or document that has notary.

Plus, I own other things, too. Things I own with no accompanying documents, like my clothes, my shoes, my toaster oven, my ball-point pens, my books, my dollar bills, etc. Many things.

You own a car or house when you have the legal contract.

I have owned my car since I traded for it money that I owned. The guy who sold the car to me paid me the car to buy my money off of me, and in that transaction, he became the new owner of the money I had previously owned. My ownership of my car is independent of any sheet of paper.

The wisdom in this,

Your "wisdom" is silliness.

since you don't ever own money,

Oh, but I do own money, you envious commie.

there is no sense chasing it.

What (if anything) do you mean by that? Define exactly what (if anything) you mean when you say someone is "chasing money."

You don't own money because there is no contract. it is state governed, hence sales tax.

Your foolishness is to imagine that if party A has power to force something out of party B's control, then 1) party B must not own that which party A is able to force out of party B's control, and 2) party A must (according to your foolishness) own that which party A is able to force out of party B's control.

 

[7djengo7]

You wrote:

When we apply this same logic to the currency of the Kingdom of God we see that our souls were purchased for a price, paid for by Jesus in his blood. The currency is the soul, it was issued by God, but satan made a claim, and then Jesus paid the price to redeem us back to God.

So, I asked you:

What do you mean by "satan made a claim"?

You: <NO ANSWER>

And, I asked you:

What "claim" are you claiming "satan made"?

You: <NO ANSWER>

And, I asked you:

"Jesus paid the price": what price, and to whom?

You: <NO ANSWER>

And, I asked you:

And, since you say "the currency is the soul," are you saying "Jesus paid the price" in souls?

You: <NO ANSWER>

Can't you stand up for your

basic points of faith and life

???

 

[Idolater]

I can't believe you actually want to converse with someone this way. May God help you. I'm here to have a little friendly christian fellowship, not debate the basic meaning of English words and basic points of faith and life.

You think there's a difference?

My comment stands on it's own. It says what I meant for it to say.

The dollar bills printed in the USA belong to the government, even when you hold them. This is a basic fact. It's not even something worth talking about. How can you find entertainment in this? Defacing currency like dollars and coins is illegal for the reason that you don't own them. You own things that you have an official deed or document that has notary. You own a car or house when you have the legal contract. You don't own money because there is no contract. it is state governed, hence sales tax.

Except for the last part, OK. True destroying our fancy paper is illegal. But also it happens all the time, by our government, who collects fancy paper our banks have judged are fit to be destroyed, and therefore replaced, by new fancy paper. No individual, no civilian, would ever do what the government does, which is destroy tons of money, all the time, and replacing it with fresh new money. They collect old fancy paper from banks and replace it with new fancy paper, one-to-one.

So it's not really that bad, to destroy money, as an individual, it would just make more sense to have the government do it instead, so that value is not lost. Particularly, value that belongs to you.

But we're all monetarists (not Keynesians) by now anyway, we all believe in the principle of slowly inflating the currency every year. Destroying a million or a billion even dollars in cash is probably not going to thwart or even much affect the monetarist goal of slow, controlled annual monetary inflation (iow inflating the monetary base).

The wisdom in this, is to understand that since you don't ever own money, there is no sense chasing it. The value of money is only expressed when it is used. And when it is used it is taxed by the company that owns it.

Do you not have the ability to enjoy the subtlety of metaphor and all the various shades of meaning provided by our language. Is everything a dominance contest?

=

I have owned my car since I traded for it money that I owned. The guy who sold the car to me paid me the car to buy my money off of me, and in that transaction, he became the new owner of the money I had previously owned.

Excellent example of why I so liked the OP's Bob's explanation:

money is the accounting of transferable incomplete transactions. That is what money actually is.

In your example, you traded some money, the transferable incomplete transaction, for a car. The fella who sold you his car traded his car for your money.

Now what does the guy need, once he's offloaded his car to you? He probably needs food, he probably needs to pay off his mortgage, his electric bill, and he might even need a new car. If you don't have exactly the car he might need, in order to trade straight-up for it, then instead he was open to receiving instead some money for his car. With that money, he can now pay his bills, get some food, and even get himself a new car—one he wants, and not just whatever you happen to have to trade.

Once he gets his new car, with the money he got from you for his car, now the transaction is complete. Thus, money served as a store of value, yes, but more specifically, it served as a transferable incomplete transaction, namely, the transaction of trading his current car for his new car. But it didn't have to occur just with one party. He traded his current car with you for some of your money, and he traded that money with another party for his new car.

It's a brilliant example of not only what money is, but of what a money economy enables us to do, all in one fell swoop. Bravo.