If money is a way of getting things done then we have to admit that outside of its social context it is pretty useless.
If for example, I left my dog my fortune (as if!) it would not be able to do much with a few paper notes and a building society account. If I left him the garden shed he would at least have shelter. My son, on the other hand would be likely to prefer the notes and the building society account and would, I’m fairly sure, be less impressed by the garden shed…
This it seems to me is the Midas parable for today. Money is worth what it is only because of its ‘social’ value.
It is true that that social value is driven by government spending but the further easy exchange between members of that society is what gives it even more use.
The fact that so much time is spent discussing money’s provenance on Progressive Pulse is, I think, not because we are interested in the process per se, it is because its creation is reflective of social purpose and where power lies, for whom and for what purpose.
It is not money itself – but what it is able to do.
In a social context when you are unsure and do not properly understand where money comes from then you do not know who has power over you.
We can, for example, when we know how money is produced, see clearly that poverty is not natural – it is distributional and created by systemic design.
Most obviously, a current instance is Sunak’s failure to support the 3 million self-employed for reasons that are completely arbitrary – seemingly just because he can.
And that’s a further reason why money is sociological.