AT LAST, A DEFINITION OF MONEY
Money is the value that gives meaning to the act of issuance.
It is hard to believe, but until now there has not been a definition of money.
For many centuries, an exact understanding of the meaning of money was obscured by two factors: First, the emotional effect that money has on us; and second, the “two forms” by which money appears to present itself — measure and instrument.
Another factor further complicates our understanding. Our first inclination is to think of value as a concept older than that of money, without realizing that in fact the concept of value arose from the notion of money.
In ancient times people would say that something was “worth”, or “valued” a certain amount. The verb to value existed, therefore, but not the noun itself. Consequently, there was not a clear definition of value as a concept.
The notion of value first appeared during the Middle Ages, when sovereigns began manipulating the monetary pieces they issued, necessitating the assertion that the metal itself had intrinsic value, which the kings could not disregard.
The metal had no value itself, but rather a quoted exchange rate on the international market. However, the idea that the monetary metal piece “had” value was fundamental to allowing the development of commerce in the Modern Age under relative monetary stability.
Regardless, the noun “value” appeared at this time, when scholars first suggested a distinction between two “different values” in money: intrinsic value, which came from the metal of which the monetary pieces were coined; and extrinsic value, which was established by the sovereigns, and served as the basis for civil contracts.
On the other hand, there are not two ways in which money expresses itself. Money is not a form of measure, because value is not a concept found in nature. Regarding the “instrument” reference, it is not relevant to the understanding of the meaning of money.
The monetary piece can be deemed a public instrument, just as a Deed of Sale, for example. However, this fact is only important when it is offered as a method of proof in an appropriate case, but is of little importance when discussing money.
The fundamental issue to be considered regarding money is its issuance. Without issuance, there is no money. Nor, however, can there be money without a normative act which gives its issuance meaning.
It is incorrect, therefore, to define money by its purpose.
After many centuries of not being able to define, with any degree of specificity, what money is, the nations of the World desperately need to establish a proper definition of money if they hope to overcome the current world economic crisis.
I offer, therefore, without pretense or vanity, my intellectual contribution so that we might begin to address this fundamental issue: This definition of money, as a value that gives meaning to the act of issuance.
( Trad. Renata Jansen e Adriana Jansen Corn )
