Money because the Mere Idea of Its Representation
Let’s suppose gold may be the actual representation of cash and silver is simply its likely representation. Then, although money doesn’t have actual independence from the actual representation (gold), it’s both:
Actual independence from the just possible representation: silver no more or otherwise yet represents it.
Just possible independence from the actual representation: rather of gold, silver could represent it.
This either actual or simply possible independence of cash correspondingly from the just possible and actual representations already can, despite still just conceptually, distinguish it from their store. This type of minimal independence is strictly the conceptual distinction always needed between anything and it is representation.
Money Creation “From Nothing”
To produce money, we want an item able to representing it. Hence, we can’t create money “from nothing”: we are able to only create it of the actual, possibly financial object.
We are able to create money from nothing concrete, by representing it by having an abstract object. However, even this abstract representation remains an item: whether abstract or concrete, any financial representation should be an item of possession.
Money because the Mere Idea of an IOU
A representation of debts are an item representing “I owe (money to) you”: an IOU.
Money can itself be an IOU. For instance, whenever a commercial loans from banks money deposited by using it, this bank doesn’t withdraw that cash in the lent account. Therefore the loaned money must fit in with both its customer and it is loaner. Then:
Towards the customer, an IOU becomes the loaner’s money.
Towards the loaner, the borrower’s money becomes an IOU.
By doing this, whether loaner and customer know that or otherwise, their cash is becoming an IOU. Thus, should i be the customer and you’re the loaner, this IOU is definitely an object representing “I owe you” that cash. So even while an IOU, our money remains what IOU.
Then, “I owe you” an… IOU: as lengthy once we mistake debt for the money, I owe you… the situation which i owe you… the situation which i owe you…
Money as either Objective or Subjective
The cash I’ve within my pocket consists in paper notes, or bank notes. These notes possess a financial value, which is associated with me. However, the notes do themselves not fit in with me (and so i don’t have any to destroy them). They’re public: they fit in with society. While their financial value is private: it is associated with me otherwise to whomever controls its representing notes.
It’s precisely this financial value — from the notes I’ve within my pocket — that constitutes money as dissimilar to its representation. It is only an abstraction — despite a social one — unlike the notes that represent it. Still, without it abstraction, its representing notes might have no financial value.
So money should be both subjective, like a financial value, and objective, since it’s representation: despite subjective, its financial value should be social, that is impossible without its objective representation.