Never Let States Define Terms - Example 283,293,930: Money

You can see at the source where the malinformation is coming from, the FED:

A textbook description of money is usually just a recitation of its functions—it acts as a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account.

No. Money is not a unit of account.  By tacking that addenda to the definition, they can add all sorts of mischief.  They know they are up to no good, so they explain:

The "unit of account" function, in particular, gets little development in the textbooks and has generally not carried much weight in the academic literature on the theory of money. (There are a few exceptions, like this NBER working paper by Matthias Doepke and Martin Schneider.) But if people are going to communicate with one another about value, those communications are going to be most effective if done using some standardized metric—and that's where money comes in. As a "unit of account," our money is how we communicate about value. It can be a physical thing, like a particular commodity, or it can be an abstract concept, like the broad purchasing power of a medium of exchange.

Fie!  See how they shift meanings and purposes!  Prices quoted in money, money properly defined, give the signals actors in an economy need to reckon and make decisions.  Prices are necessary and sufficient.  Here the FED folks boldly name what is going on, and how come our economy is in such dire straights: they are ascribing to tallies the work of prices.

And that is the heart of the scam.

Mish has also reviewed this from another perspective.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post