Philosophy of Money
Discussions center on the definition and nature of money as an abstraction, medium of exchange, or store of value, debating its fungibility, exchangeability, and distinction from commodities or fiat currency.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Money that isn't freely exchangeable isn't money at all.
money is just this construct that we invented to distribute limited resources. why are we doing this?
Absolutely - it's just an abstraction layer over the idea of exchange. If there's nothing to exchange, there's no need for money!
Money is just a fungible unit of comparison for types of value, nothing more.
"the value of ANY currency is only based how much other people accept to give you in exchange"Wasn't that mostly true for gold as well? (Unless you wanted to make jewelry out of it, low utility high status signaling)
Money, or more properly, _currency_, is not a store of value. Oil, timber, or woool is a store of value -- it is actually something you can use. Money is an abstract "IOU", a right to demand someone give you something of value. At the end of the day, a society with oil, timber and wool is better than a society with only money. The only utility money has is that it facilitates production, instead of leaving people unemployed and starving because they have no convenient way to trade thei
Money isn't consumed and it only has value when used.
Doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't convert it to currency easily, why does it have value at all?
Sure. How about "Everyone is using it as a commodity instead of a currency?"
Money is already treated as a commodity