Such credit created by a person is based upon the use value of 'Labour' which I would define as a combination of:

(a) Energy - manpower, or unqualified labour;

(b) 'Subjective' Knowledge - what I have between my ears, including knowledge, experience, intuition, common sense, creativity, contacts etc etc - which enables me/(someone else) to put my manpower to best/(most profitable) use.

But note that credit may also be created based upon the use value of productive assets, particularly land/location, and most money in existence comes into existence through credit created by banks and secured against the use value of land/location.

An increasing amount of credit is based upon the use value of 'objective' knowledge, which is 'monetised' through the use of property rights and/or the concept of the corporate 'legal' person.

The monetisation of use value requires a framework of trust, and we are accustomed to using credit intermediaries for that purpose, who back an implicit guarantee of a borrower's credit with an amount of proprietary capital set by banking regulators. The process also requires an accounting system to record credit obligations.

Finally, exchange transactions require a 'Value Standard' or unit of measure for value, which is analogous to the metre as a standard unit of measure for length or a kilogramme as a standrd unit of measure for mass.

Note here that we are accustomed to a Unit of currency being the same thing as a Value Standard or unit of measure. This is not necessarily the case. A Value Standard is an abstract unit, whereas a Unit of currency is a store of value (or money's worth) which is generally acceptable in exchange.

In my analysis - and I have now got past the foreword of my 'tract' on the subject - we will see national currencies based upon 'unitised' land value, and an international reserve currency based upon 'unitised' energy in one form or another, while transactions generally will be made by reference to an 'Energy Standard' ie a standard unit of energy in an amount which is meaningful to everyday experience (eg energy equivalent to 10 Kilo Watt Hours, or the energy equivalent to the fuel use of a litre of n-Octane).

The necessary framework of trust will be a Credit Clearing Union, backed by mutual guarantees and provisions into default pools, and it is this framework which enables the monetisation of our credit.

The point is that credit created by banks is based upon a claim over someone else's credit. ie a claim over credit issued by someone else. This 'claim over a claim' is essentially two negatives creating a false positive, because credit intermediaries back the credit they create with little or no 'money's worth' of capital.

The credit necessary for the circulation of goods and services and creation of productive assets requires no investment/deposits, although it does require a trust framework. Credit backed by the use value of productive assets, on the other hand, does require investment/deposits.

The reason why virtually all schools of Economics - apart from the modern monetary theorists/ cartalists - fuck it up is that they assume conventional money to be a debt instrument, when it is in fact the opposite polarity ie a credit instrument.

This ideological assumption is of course aimed at justifying the otherwise unjustifiable - ie the privatisation of the Credit Commons - and at obscuring an inconvenient reality.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

When trust totally breaks down, panicing people queue up at their bank to withdraw all their trust in the form of cash - the wallet part. What they are saying is "We don't believe you!"

You can't be me, I'm taken