Who "Owns" Money?

So I asked the question: Who "owns" money?

Have you thought about it? Have you ever thought about it? Think about it: Who "owns" money?

Not how much money you own, but who "owns" money?

Not where did money comes from, but who "owns" money?

Seems like a stupid question? Or is it? Can you answer it? You know why it seems a silly question to ask? It's because you have no answer for it, that's why. And the reason you have no answer for it is because your society/world has a discussion on everything in the world, except the discussion on what money is. You have to understand the fallacy in our world, then you will understand why evil exists. Evil exists because man hides and shirks away from his greatest virtues, to appease the tyranny of ignorance and the inability to understand "ownership".

Think I'm just baffling- then go ahead, tell us: Who "owns" money?

You couldn't begin to offer me an answer which suffices an objective consideration of money within the paradigms of a world populated upon exchange principles, simply because that world you live in has chosen to create your standard for your quality of life into something other than the prevailing topic of your day.

Go ahead, venture if you dare: Tell us who "owns" money in the only manner which could do no offense to anyone else, and yet offer no short on the motive of money, either.

The reason why you can't answer is because your world has erected a charged fence on the topic. It's the reason why your first idea of an answer to who owns money is some public figure.

So, tell me: Who "owns" money?

But if you don't want to tell me, I'll tell you: I own money- and so do anyone who affirms to the principles of money.

There is but one way to "own" money, and that's to own the principle constructs which would facilitate capitalism in a world. Think of money as an object, but capitalism is the movement- capitalism is the currency projector of that object. Without capitalism, money would just be the paper chains that bind us to each other's problems.

To own money, you can't just own the object of money in either of its digital or hard currency form, you must own the understanding of what make money proper for driving capitalism.

What makes money proper for capitalism is that its the ultimate freedom facilitator between men governed by exchange principles. The universal value reference point of an understanding made possible by money means we don't have to take a loss during any consideration of exchange because we now have a measurement for value. But to define money by its reference point for exchange simply for exchange sake would be doing money a disservice. Money is a driving force, a property which moves mountains, so money can never really be subordinated to consumerism for ownership purposes. Money is always first a proactive initiative, and any ideas of ownership of money will always proceed from that proactive aspect.

To "own" money, one must own what it takes to activate money within the realm of capitalism. Remember, money is just the object, but the object itself of money is just the reference point for the intent of money. Money's intent is to charge the populous, to ignite the world with a universal reference point for value exchange. But how do you take money from it's object form to a currency agenda enough to activate the process of driving capitalism?

That's the question that one leads back to in his search for the answer to who "owns" money. And to complete the answer, one must define what makes money a currency beyond just being an object.

Think about: If capitalism is the movement of money, then what makes the money move? Nothing makes money move but proper actions formed from principled ideas formed from gleaming information.

Thus, money is an information derivative.

All forms of businesses are prepackaged capitalistic agendas acting off the information those businesses have. From the sale of hamburgers at Burger King's, to the sale of wireless service from Verizon, they're all making money from shaping the information each has into its own monetizing vehicles.

And that's the point: The person who "owns" money is the person who owns the understanding that money is an information derivative- meaning as long as you are willing to package any information you have into a monetizable format and push it to the masses, you will always be able to activate the cycles of capitalism.

And within any realm of capitalism, anytime you can keep money moving- you will always own it.

The person who owns money is the person who owns information and is willing to construct that information into a monetizable agenda. That person will own money so much- that they'll never be without it.

Think about it.