Money does represent human potential, aside from the medium of exchange store of wealth etc.Fiat money has no intrinsic value,therefore it does represent unrealised potential.It all depends on how we make the game of economics fair.Govt should only be a referee,not and player.Currently we have and oligarchy whereby Govt and Corporates have subjugated the individual in debt slavery.There is a better way.

Free humans from any slavery and creativity will make many things possible.Pericles,we humans in this era are limited by our avarice, fuelled by insecurity & fear.

Pelican, it does not matter if money is printed or not. The
RBA could write an IOU to other countries, when they have to
pay our current account deficit. But they would need US $,
as that is the global default currency.

So how do we get US $ to pay our bills? We have to borrow
them.

One answer to our current account would be if Australians
saved more. I was happy to see that the latest tax
suggestions to Govt, suggested exactly what I have been
harping on about for years, when it comes to tax on
bank deposits. But the Govt ignored them.

Australian's prefer to be the world's largest gamblers,
with something like 20 billion a year being spent,
commonly down the pokies. If they had a reason to
save more, without getting done like a dinner on tax,
they might actually do it. People generally act out
of self interest.

If Govts really were serious about infrastructure, they
could start by spending the money which they already
receive, a bit more wisely. Add up the megadollar give
away, insulation scheme, wasted money on school halls,
etc, you could have built lots of infrastructure.

Working in the public service, you yourself would
know how much money is wasted by Govt.

I realize that it is one of your mantras, Arjay, but you do need to explain what you mean by it a little better.

>>Money does represent human potential, aside from the medium of exchange store of wealth etc.<<

It is the word "potential" that robs your statement of any meaning, thus:

potential n.
1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.

You are suggesting that money is somehow the measure of something that does not yet exist - it may do in the future, but not now. That clearly cannot make sense. What happens to money if that potential is not realized?

I also take issue with your view that money is somehow a "store of wealth", which it is not.

It may be used as a measure of stored wealth at a specific point in time. But money itself has no intrinsic value - it only has value when it is used.

Hiding it in a vault somewhere actually eliminates its value entirely. You can look at it, and touch it. But it doesn't actually assume any measurable value until you do something with it.

Think about Weimar inflation for a moment. If you parked a million Marks on Monday, when it might have bought you a loaf of bread, and brought it out again on Friday to do the same transaction, you would have been laughed at, as the price was now two million. Far from being a store of value, it turned out to be a sink of value.

>>Fiat money has no intrinsic value,therefore it does represent unrealised potential<<

No money, fiat or otherwise, has any intrinsic value.

A ten-dollar bill, in any currency, is simply a unit of information.

An ounce of gold has the same characteristic. An ounce today costs over US$1,200, when five years ago it was a third of that price. But that value is only realized if you sell it.

Start thinking of money as information, Arjay, and you won't go far wrong.