Forum Thread

The real importance of money.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    This is a small part of my value of money and trade copied from my essay:

    "Monetary theory gives money a role in the process when actually it facilitates the process. Money should be recognized as only a unit of trade and valued only for trade. The real subject and the only important aspect is trade. The actual definition of an economy. Trade both domestic and international as it is now and as we know it is an end game. It should be considered as a perpetual process and dealt with accordingly. That would result in industry and employment. Currently trade is a competition with an end goal. The end goal is maximising the accumulation of money. The only result can be pressure to trade with a diminishing supply of money. An end game. Monetary theory has nothing to do with trade other than stifling trade. The concern should be trade and maximising and continuing trade. With continuing trade, both domestic and international that would put money in the correct context. Money would facilitate trade and not be the object of trade. Trade deals that are out of balance or taking money out of the system would be controlled by taxes or tariffs. The importance of money to facilitate trade would have to be facilitated through legislation. Domestic laws and international treaties would have to prioritize the function of money being to facilitate trade. The real meaning and definition of an economy would be realised. Employment would expand to fill the need and consequently the effects of unemployment would diminish."