>
> Can we not agree that money is, at least, a security? Can we also not
>agree that money is, after all, created by contracts (loans) and finds its
>ultimate value in the reliability of those contracts? To say, therefore,
>that money is not a contract may be true in the specific sense, but not in
>the larger sense.
>
I don't know what this means. I thought money was created by the govt, and its ultimate value is people's willingness to accept it in exchange for goods and services. In the that sense it depends on the reliability of contracts, that is, if people won't make those contracts and accept the money, it loses ts value. I don't care to get all mystical about money. Remember, radix omnium malorum cupiditas est! jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.