No, I'm talking about actual money: scarce, fungible, durable, universal, etc.
If I provide a valuable service for you, and you pay me in something that has those properties, why shouldn't that thing be equal in value in the future?
Discussion
In this reply, you're overestimating the value of labor which is paid for in money and discounting all of the most valuable labor, none of which would ever be paid for in money
Wha?
For example, as a child, you wanted to learn things, so you did labor such as figuring out how to read, and you were paid in knowledge.
Another example: as an adult, you have probably tried to think of something comforting to say to someone grieving a loved one's death, for no pay at all.
I posit that if you had to live in a world where, starting tomorrow, you will never see a child learn anything, and nobody will care how you feel if your loved ones die; you would prefer going without everything you've ever paid money for.
I get that. I think I just didn't fully comprehend your last bit about valuable things not ever being paid for in money, but Satoshi wasn't trying to fix these non-economic activities, which are mostly outside the purview of what the elites can control. So everything that can be transacted between market participants.
7+7+7 seems more arbitrary, but maybe there's some Satoshi jackpot reference I've never heard about.
If Satoshi meant 21 as half of 42 for the reasons you're explaining, I don't think that would be all there is to it. He seemed to just see money as a tool, so I don't see him designing a purely focused message of "money is half of the meaning of life."
With the 7+7+7, mining bitcoin is a lot like re-rolling again and again on a slot machine. I assume that's at least part of the reference with the 21. It's also common for 21 to be used as a lucky number because of the 3x7 thing by my understanding