Independence of Debt and The Measure of Value it Represents

By Marc Gauvin (c) 22/2/2014

Reproduction expressly granted provided attribution and original link are given.

Each debt arises from a unique transaction for which there exists a unique set of accounting units (by definition) that are subsequently resolved against existing balances as described here

The so called need for the "transfer of debt" is a direct function of forcing the full set of accounting units into an arbitrarily limited smaller set (usually that corresponding to a particular "officially" accredited support e.g. legal tender).  There is another confusion here too,  the only time it is of interest to assume the debt of another is in the case where a particular debtor's payment has speculative value,  but that case cannot be assumed as a generic rational basis for any standard common measure of value of both goods and services and by extension any subsequent debt.

Goods and Services -> Transaction -> Measure of Value (money) ->  positive and negative accounts of the value measured.  

No other set of dependencies makes any rational sense, money can never be an input and still be a valid measure of value and hence of subsequent debt.

For a stable money system,  the value measure is of goods and services not of debt, debt is a subsequent record of that measure and can only be redeemed by providing goods and services.   The notion that measure can redeem measure is simply insane.   No matter how much people are accustomed to insanity it doesn't make it sane.

Finally,  the fact that a debt doesn't get paid doesn't imply that the original measure is not valid or needs to change,  it just means that the goods and services provided will not be reciprocated by a particular entity.  The question of guarantying goods and services from individuals is a separate function from the measure and subsequent liability of and for these (goods and services). A ton of wood invested in a log cabin that burns down doesn't become 0 tons invested in a log cabin.  Measure and payment are independent functions to make the former contingent on the latter is the irrational foundation of the current false paradigm.

The central issue is that the measure of value is the basis of everything and this needs to be stable, for the measure to be stable all transactions in the system must not only be stable but must also be PASSIVE.  Debt is the measure of the value of transacted goods and services and that measure doesn't change as a function of payment, just like an amount of flour provided on trust doesn't change because one hasn't returned that amount.

Additional information