The undermining effects of "assumed" definitions of money


 By Marc Gauvin

Copyright (c) 30-09-2013

Reproduction in full expressly granted provided full attribuiton is given and links to are provided.


How money is defined is crucial if its use is to be rational.   We can only have coherent action on the basis of coherent definitions, no matter how hard we try,  our actions will be incoherent if we base them on irrational definitions.

For something as important as what defines our value (money), don't we need a meticulously unequivocal technical definition, without allegories and assumptions of "understanding"?

Essentially, the difficulty for most is to accept that unlike physical structures where a rotten post can be replaced by a new one without necessarily compromising the whole structure, in logical paradigms, just one false premise actually does invalidate the whole and all that follows no matter how elaborate and assumed that happens to be.

When one defines something formally it is not enough to declare a proposition and have others agree to it, the definition must be unequivocal and for that,  there is no room for allegory every word must have a concrete unequivocal and exact precise definition based on objective independent axioms and/or demonstrable natural law.  Otherwise, we are condemned to group thinking with no independent objectivity.

For example a careful review of the current standard composite definition of money (medium of exchange, store of value and measure of value) is anything but rational unequivocal exact and precise. At best it is an allegoric assumption and as my late uncle use to say to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.

At close scrutiny, the proposition "money is a medium of exchange" is nonsense. A medium of exchange means the physical means REQUIRED for a physical process to take place. Money is NOT required to exchange goods and services it is an auxiliary annotation nothing more and nothing travels through it or is physically supported by it. Similarly, money is not a store of value it is again at most an auxiliary annotation to what could be "stored" but in many cases is not e.g. when we transact food to ead it is not stored, and the value of that food is certainly not "stored" in the money, it always remains in the food or whatever consumed the food, right? So money stores nothing.   Which leaves the notion of measure, money CAN be a measure if it were used as such but it is not used that way. In this regard, only in mutual credit transactions at zero is money used as such.

For a full treatment of this topic please download the
Money PSYOP and this presentation.  For more on defining money according to scientific and rational precepts go to this page or explore in full.

Additional information