First I’d start out by saying I don’t think money itself “only exists because people believe in” it. Rather, money itself is definitely a real thing, but it gains its value from people’s belief. Maybe you consider that semantics, but I would say we’re already deep in the weeds of semantics.
Anyway, money is inanimate. It can’t per se change people’s behaviour. We might occasionally metaphorically talk about it as though it does, but in reality it is, as you suggest, “people acting on their own based on their belief in money”.
Money is the value of money, not the paper. If you’re saying money is a piece of paper, that’s like saying Jesus is a little wooden statue of a man on a cross. If money most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of paper), then Jesus most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of wood).
But that’s not what I believe. I believe money is the idea of money’s value, and Jesus is the idea of Jesus’ values.
First I’d start out by saying I don’t think money itself “only exists because people believe in” it. Rather, money itself is definitely a real thing, but it gains its value from people’s belief. Maybe you consider that semantics, but I would say we’re already deep in the weeds of semantics.
Anyway, money is inanimate. It can’t per se change people’s behaviour. We might occasionally metaphorically talk about it as though it does, but in reality it is, as you suggest, “people acting on their own based on their belief in money”.
Money is the value of money, not the paper. If you’re saying money is a piece of paper, that’s like saying Jesus is a little wooden statue of a man on a cross. If money most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of paper), then Jesus most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of wood).
But that’s not what I believe. I believe money is the idea of money’s value, and Jesus is the idea of Jesus’ values.