It contains enough banknotes to purchase a brand new wallet of a better version I saw in a magazine. This purchasing power belongs to only me: I’m the only person who will use those notes to purchase anything. Likewise, if I move them to another individual, then instead of me, just this other person will possess their purchasing power. Yet even if my moving away my banknotes can always move along their hands, it might never move along their property, which isn’t the only mine.
The notes, as representations of cash, don’t belong to only me. By way of instance, I’ve no right to make or destroy them: they’re public. What belongs to me or simply to whoever else handles any such notes is quite their buying power, which consequently has to be private. Really, if my banknotes were just mine, I could move them away by selling them, less cash, but instead as only concrete objects.
But this would prevent me temporarily from using those notes to purchase anything. Therefore by recognizing the buying power they then would shed as their financial value and their rather keeping this value as its representation, we can conclude: Its representation has to be public, or unsellable. However, if not me, then who can sell, purchase, create, or destroy those banknotes? This question ought to be negligible if what I have is their monetary value as opposed to the notes themselves. But if selling, purchasing, making, or destroying them can alter their individual financial worth, then the identical question becomes critical.
Distinguishing the letter”a” from its verbal noise would prevent this visual representation of the sound. Likewise, differentiating a banknote from its financial value would prevent this concrete, objective representation of the value. The resulting confusion (indistinction) between a representation and what it signifies must happen to all representations of something determined by them by something independent from them. Indeed, the letter”a” doesn’t depend on its own visually represented verbal noise or a banknote on its own financial value. Likewise, a digital account doesn’t rely on its equilibrium, nor a precious-metal amount on its own purchasing power.
Anything both determined by its own representation and represented by something independent from representing it becomes indistinguishable from this representation. Furthermore, just concrete objects can stay independent of what they signify. So letters (like”a”), banknotes, precious metals, or electronic accounts, even if only envisioned, are concrete objects. While conversely, all strictly concrete, objective representations of cash must stay indistinguishable in their financial value, despite such a price and its representation being constantly respectively public and private.
So every purely concrete, objective representation of its monetary value is inherently problematic: its indistinction in the personal value it openly represents must privatize this entire public representation of the value. As thus, any such representation requires an impossibly private control of its consistently necessarily people, unsellable self, whether by individuals selling, purchasing, creating, or destroying it. Nevertheless, I could still control the monetary value of my banknotes.
Indeed, we have represented that value with items as purely concrete as these notes, such as precious metals and electronic accounts. How did we resolve the possession battle inherent in their private representation of cash? How could all those independently controlled financial representations remain public? The solution was to assign their personal control to a public financing authority. By no other means can we independently control what’s always necessarily public: just the public delegation of a still private control can independently publicize it, the collective name for all So any purely concrete, objective representation of cash requires its own overall control by a government.
But privately and publicly controlling exactly the same thing continues to be mutually exclusive. Therefore, even if people, the financial authority of a government that individually controls all money must rather be personal. Eventually, this battle will segregate any financial authority of the government into a private part of its public: a central bank. Indeed, any such authorities could only stay public provided that just a part of it will become private.
Then, its public entire will be private by assigning all its financial control to that personal part of itself, which conversely will be public only by belonging to the Finally, no matter government organization, a still purely tangible, objective representation of cash remains necessarily confidential, or privately public to entire authorities, even if currently private to their central banks. For which to be possible, a government must make its independent money by borrowing it from its own central bank.
So it not only buys the generated money from its own personal self, or sells it to its own public, but also destroys that cash by paying it back While conversely, that bank becomes the first creditor of the independently created, publicly loaned cash, as of any extra money made for paying its interest, then together with the consequent inflation and recursive interest payments, of a growing fraction of monetary price. However, even in the absence of any central bank, once commercial banks make money by loaning it to people who subsequently use that cash to purchase public debt, or perhaps just pay public taxation, a government already borrows its cash from the banking system, despite essentially.