> On this we agree, but, of course, my point was that when I say "value" I don't mean monetary value.
Value and monetary value represent almost essentially the same thing.
There isn't some other "pixie" dust version of value, for which - people for some reason - refuse to give money for.
If people aren't willing to pay money for something, oh the odds are it's worthless - in every sense of the word.
> A person's value is intangible.
No, it isn't, person without assets (and money) is worthless and their value is selling their labour like a slave
directionally proportional how valuable their labour is, or they sleep under a bridge and starve. And this is exactly what happens in reality.
That's unless they have friends and family that assign some value (monetary!) to them, and are willing (and able!) to buffer the expense of getting them of the street, etc. This expense can be directly translated to money of the fiat kind.
> What a woefully capitalistic perspective. I wish the best of luck to you and your shareholders.
The perspective is either true or it's not. I couldn't care less what label you assign to it.
If a person is starving and sleeping out on the street, or has health issues. It will cost money to feed them, house them and cure them.
A broke person is literally incapable of providing this in any sustainable way.
Some pedantic "akshually-ing" about "exchange debt owed by the issuing state" isn't helping anyone.