CB: Contracts involve quid pro quo , sorry, an exchange of something for something, value for value. In that respect money is not "a contract" , but can be the form of value exchanged in a contract.
It has been said that the functions of money are as: measure of value, means of circulation (of commodities), means of accumulation or hoarding, means of payment, universal money.
>
> 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.
>
Justin replied:
"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!"
"I don't know what this means" is among the lamest devices in argumentation, despite its popularity. You may note that what I wrote was in English while what you wrote was in a language that is dead to all but the appearance of erudition. Money is created by the government loaning to banks and banks loaning to other banks, which loans are contracts. Nothing mystical about that.