Emotional misinterpretation of money.
Pavol Travnik

Thank you for your comment.

In something more like reality than commentary, money isn’t a specific thing, because the ‘what’ of money varies according to the context and relationships in which it is made, lost or exchanged.

So in this sense, your critique is partly accurate, i.e. my position in the essay is at best incomplete and at worst an emotional tirade.

I admit that this is a problem with the essay, and should be addressed. An essay is an attempt at something, with rare exceptions, it only partly succeeds. It is also an exploration of perspectives and relationships. So a good essay is explorative, a better one is pioneering, an excellent essay changes minds and worlds for the better.

But I will address a similar concern to your criticism: you have decided ‘what money is’ in all contexts (generally), and it cannot be what you have decided. It is formally impossible.

If we are to chose between our two biases, I prefer mine, but would include yours in its scope, without seeing either as complete or correct.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.