Much other credit=money is also secured against assets, and again, is not actually in circulation, but is "static".
All money except fiat currency itself is secured against assets ... but the speed of the velocity of a certain type of commercial bank liability that can be used, in some transaction, as money is entirely a matter of flows.
A money stock exists at a point in time. If we could take a snapshot of all commercial bank balances at a point in time, and add up the total bank liabilities that function as money at that point in time, that is the stock of money.
A monetary flow exists through time ... it is a count of a number of monetary transactions that occur within some period. The "static" idea above is simply a flow of zero, which is certainly possible for some commercial bank liabilities that function as money, especially for short periods such as a month or a week.
But At All Times in a reserve banking system, barring shenanigans in which an insolvant bank is being temporarily hidden from the bank examiners, total commercial bank assets equal total commerical bank liabilities, with the account liabilities that function as money providing the lion's share of the money supply, and fiat currency in circulation (rather than held by commercial banks as assets) providing the remainder of the money supply.
That supply is a stock. There is no necessity for the stock to increase in size in order for the total amount of monetary transactions in a period to increase, since the average velocity of circulation of a unit of currency can increase instead.
However, since commercial banks create additional purchasing power as an immediate side-effect of extending new credit (and with nothing whatsoever to do with the need to allow interest to be paid), money stock broadly measured does tend to move with the income-expenditure cycle that is in part driven by that extension of new credit. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Money as it really is - as opposed to the toxic bank-created Object we are accustomed to - has no "cost" any more than an inch or a kilogram has a cost.
At any given point in time in the global accounting universe or "Ledger of Ledgers" comprising all accounting transactions there is:
(a) a complete equal and opposite set of "Accounts Receivable" and "Accounts Payable" ie a global "transaction repository".
(b)a complete set of who "owns" or has rights of use in what - ie a global "Title Repository".
The former is essentially "working capital" and the latter is essentially "fixed capital".
In sum, this may be thought of as "Capital". It is both "Static" Value and "potential" Money.
"Money" is the result when "transaction" messages pass within this accounting universe - and changes are then made in the database in relation to creation and settlement of obligations, and transfers of title to assets.
But "Money" in reality is ephemeral - it is "Dynamic Value", existing only in the transient moment of the transaction event.
Money is a Relationship, not a bank-created Object.
Banks as credit intermediaries are simply not necessary. They are not a necessary part of the accounting universe in fact.
There is in truth no REAL money "stock" - we have simply been fooled into thinking that bank-created credit constitutes Value, rather than its antithesis. There is only a stock of POTENTIAL money aka Capital.
Capital is to Money as Matter is to Energy: Economics is the Physics of Value. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
As I have said often enough on this site, Bank (Deficit) Money bears the same relationship to Value as anti-Matter does to Matter. It is an IOU or a "claim over Value".
Bank money is a promise from the bank to clear a payment provided you have been credited with a sufficient amount in the correct account. Provided they fulfill that promise, it functions as a medium of exchange, store of value, unit of account, and standard of deferred payment.
Its a good thing that it is not valuable in its own right, but instead is valuable, as with any other financial asset which is a liability of another party, to the extent that the other party fulfills its promise. Having intrinsic value would interfere with its functioning as money. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The existence of this is a very large part of "the problem".
My point is that banks as credit intermediaries are simply unnecessary, when an alternative monetary system comprises:
(a) a barter network; (b) bilateral credit, with a mutual guarantee, backed by a default fund; (c) a "Value Unit", (d) a Credit Manager formerly known as a Bank - as service provider.
Money is a relationship, not an object. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Of course money is a relation, not an object. Social institutions are not objects, even when they feel like objects in use. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
But the point is that "Money" is not in fact a "thing".
A Value Unit is abstract, and is a necessary part of the Money relationship.
A Value Unit is a "Unit of account" and also a "Medium of Exchange".
As for "standard of deferred contract payment", yes, a monetary system exists to split barter transactions over time.
But a "Store of Value"? Conventional interest-bearing money operates in this way, of course.
But in reality, definitely not. A "Store of Value" is what "Capital" is all about. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
