krebscycle

Where does this leave Graeber’s other alternative approach, the credit theories of money? In asserting that debt is the essence of money, Graeber seems to be saying two quite different things. First, there is the argument we have already seen that money is not a thing but an abstract unit of measurement. Now, on the economists’ list of money’s functions, “unit of account” is an absolutely standard item, alongside “store of value” and “means of payment” or “medium of exchange” (views differ as to whether these are one 
function or two).

Few would deny that money is, among other things, a unit of measurement. But Graeber apparently means more than this – that this is money’s essence.  [Mike Beggs on Graeber’s book “Debt”].

All of that I have said so far merely serves to underline a reality that has come up constantly over the course of this book: that money has no essence. It’s not “really” anything:  therefore its nature has been and presumably always will be a matter of political contention. 

[David Graeber writing in his book “Debt”.  P372]