If the discussion continues further and turns to strictly economic topics, the conversation usually turns to “backed” and “unbacked” money. This is already a more important point, but also a more controversial one.
The idea of “backed” money gives rise to the strange notion that a “commodity mass” must correspond to a “monetary mass,” and that the money supply must grow alongside the quantity of goods. In this chain of reasoning—on which so many arguments about crisis and economics are built—everything is strange. First, the mystical connection between the “commodity mass” and the “monetary mass” is incomprehensible. For some reason, it completely ignores the existence of price, supply, and demand. Second, it’s entirely unclear why the commodity mass must grow at all. If you produce higher-quality goods that last longer, you need fewer of them.
In other words, the initial reasoning about “monetary mass growth in accordance with commodities” stems from the rigidity of current economic practice, in which the money supply indeed constantly grows, except during crises when it “collapses.” But this is just one possible practice—and, as we can see, far from the best one. If we recall that the essence of economic activity consists in satisfying needs, creating opportunities, and self-realization—not in the production of goods and money—then the absurdity of this thesis becomes completely obvious.