“Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary, exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion. The value of goods, expressed in money, is called "prices," while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called "value."

Carrol Quigley, ”Tragedy and Hope: A history of the world in our time” chapter 5.

https://www.thewayofcoherence.com/post/blood-money

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

If money is a claim on wealth which you don't have. How can it be a debt. Isn't debt a claim someone else has against you?

Sorry if I miss your point.

Hi kongreif, I try to break down professor Quigley's quote and more in the blog. If I succeeded.. you can be the judge :)

I think it works as an analogy, but the term isn’t broadly appropriate because the money itself holds the value being exchanged. So despite it behaving like one because it doesn’t have direct utility, it also doesn’t have any specific counterparty risk and is a liability for no specific individual, so it isn’t really a “debt” either.

_Fiat_ money does have counterparty risk (I realize you are talking about "money" the abstract concept, or "sound money")

Thank you!