Money is Not a Commodity: The Proof

This is the proof that Money is not a commodity. If you can solve the riddle and disprove the proof, I’ll give you a prize, like say, maybe, Algeria.

It’s not too complex actually. It’s based on the proof of an already accepted law of mathmatics that you cannot divide by zero. That’s done by looking for the inconsistencies that dividing by zero creates elsewhere in the system.
Robert Kaplan, author of The Nothing That Is— A Natural History of Zero proves it this way:
Pick two numbers, like 13 and 25... ok...
we know: 13 X 0 = 0
and we know: 25 X 0 = 0
therefore: 13 X 0 = 25 X 0
now divide
both sides
by zero and... 13 = 25
The inconsistency is… well, obvious. The inconsistency is that by dividing by zero, you can arrange to prove just about anything.

So, are there inconsistencies in foriegn commodity trade transactions? The assumption by the economic community is that money is a commodity and by allowing the free purchase and sale of one currency for another, currency values will be determined by the market forces the same as any other commodity. Here is what happens in real life when you buy and sell currencies.
“The power of these speculators was dramatically illustrated in 1992 when financier George Soros, following a bet with then UK prime Minister John Major, sold $10 billion worth of British pounds on international Money Markets for a $1 billion profit and in doing so, single-handedly managed to force a devaluation of the pound and scuttle a new proposal for an exchange rate system in the European Union at the same time.”

Tony Clarke of the Polaris Institute, Canada, cited in
The Ecologist, May/June 1999,
”Twilight of the Corporation,” page 161)

So . . .
Are there inconsistencies here? At first, it appears that the British currency acted like any other commodity. When supply increased, demand decreased and the value of the pound dropped. Pure supply & demand.

But there are inconsistencies in the Soros case (and many others):
Britain's economy was adversely affected by Soro's trade, even though Britain had actually gained financial power (Soros made a £.6 million profit and the same was added to the British economy) The other types of foriegn commodity transactions may cause small fluctuations, but they do not destabilize a country's entire economy. Other types of foriegn commodity trade, besideds buying and selling a currency with a currency, are:

· buying a commodity with a currency
· selling a commodity for a currency
· trading a commodity for a commodity (other than money)

The specific point here is that the values of all other foreign traded commodities whether imports or exports were altered by Soros. That is, a sale of a particularly large quantity of wheat, may alter the price of wheat and might possibly, in a wildly extreme situation, even affect related products like corn, but it will not alter the whole market uniformly. The value of all other commodities, imports and exports, was altered by the Soros deal. It did what no other commodity can do, so we can only conclude that there is something odd about exchanging currencies as though they were commodities. For this reason currencies cannot be considered true commodities.
To disprove this, one must show that other types of foreign commodity exchanges listed above can and do — to the same extent and with similar frequency — alter the whole market as currency trades do. Or maybe you can find another way.

Disprove the Proof and win yourself a prize.
Time Limit: 100 years
Good Luck

Go to:
Walter's Page
Synergy Essays
Synergy Home