Monica,

I think that as with most things, we look at the details and it gets more complicated, but if we look at the bigger picture, it becomes more obvious.

We trade money for goods and services, so we tend to see it as a form of commodity, but it's a contract. As in a promise, an obligation. Even if it's leveraged many times over, it is the function of banking to maintain its own accounts adequately, because as the medium, the main foundation is simply trust in the system

As such, it functions as a medium of exchange. Yet because we think of it as a commodity, we try to save and store it. Econ 101 says money is both medium of exchange and store of value, but one is dynamic, while the other is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store.

In order to store money, there has to be an obligation created to back it, aka, debt.

Which is all well and good, if there is a general understanding on both sides, but the inclination is to create lots of questionable debt, in order to back the stored money, because saving money makes people feel secure. Though you see the problem. If you understood your pension plan was backed by credit card debts of people who couldn't afford to buy in the first place, or money the government borrows to blow up other countries, sooner or later it will collapse and your pension will be worthless.

Back in the day, people raised their kids and were taken care of in old age, now we have retirement plans and the kids have piles of student loans, etc.

So we need to both understand why money and banking are essential to a healthy economy and why it cannot metastatically grow and consume the entire economy.

As the executive and regulatory function, government is analogous to a central nervous system, while money and banking are analogous to blood and the circulation system.

There was a time when government was private, as more enterprising individuals and groups attained power and learned to hold onto it. Though as society developed, it became obvious this has effective limits and government should be a public utility. "By the people, of the people, for the people."

Yet banking largely and effectively remains a private function. Even with the Federal Reserve system, it is more the banks using the power of government, than the government dictating to the banks.

Since our system of elections limits the abilities of any individual politician to effectively think and plan beyond the next election, it makes the banks the dominant force, since they can buy any politician, or control who is able to run.

The problem this creates for society is that it puts the interest of banking outside and above the decision making process of government and society. Desire rules over judgement. Greed and appetite become the goal of society.

This is destined to self destruct. It's like bacteria unaware of the confines of the petri dish. There is no long term objectivity, that government is supposed to provide.

So we are going through a learning curve right now, as banks are having their, "Let them eat cake." moment.

Before we come to understand that banking must also be a public utility.

Consider the functionality of money is its fungibility, so we own it like we own the section of road we are on, or the air and water flowing through our bodies. It is a medium, a quintessential public utility, just like roads.

It took a hundred plus years to go from the French Revolution, to World War 1 and effectively shed monarchy, even if a tattered remnant remains, with the British. It might take as long to fully divest ourselves of banking as private empires. Especially as they are able to control and co-opt any aspect of society they might see as a threat, yet the greatest danger to the banks are themselves. They are cooking their own golden goose.

When the mess the next time is too great for the governments to rescue them from their own excesses, society will begin to see the medium that enables markets must also be public.

Eventually though, we need to realize money should not displace all other connections of society. It is like we are all in economic wombs, with our bank account as our umbilical cord. Everything shouldn't been seen as for sale.

The fact is there isn't the investment potential for everyone to save adequately, in individual accounts, but we do save for many of the same reasons, so the premise of the commons could be resurrected, but that would require rethinking our society.

Currently there is the belief it is the function of society to provide us with rights, yet the health of society depends on everyone first being responsible. The "Tragedy of the Commons," is when everyone has rights, but responsibilities are optional.

Back when our country was first conceived, there was a great deal of attention given to broad rights, but in those times, people who were not responsible were as likely to starve as not, so it was a given that people would be reasonably responsible. Yet in our modern highly efficient economy, that is not always necessary and now it's all about the rights to do anything we want. Including using power to make ourselves extremely wealthy, with little regard for the society that enables that wealth.

This is getting bit long and it is an ongoing conversation we all must have.