First, if “fiat money is a liability of society and a proportional claim on the future output of society”, then why must the value of these claims decrease when more claims are issued? This might sound like a silly question to you, so I’ll better elaborate. I’d agree with you if there already existed claims on the *total* future output of the society. But I don’t think this is the case. And that’s why I want to argue: The new claims that are issued are against that part of future output which wasn’t yet “claimed”. Of course we cannot in reality divide between future output which there exists claims against and future output which there doesn’t exist claims again, so this is a question to be answered at the aggregate level. Does there exist already claims against all future output of the society?

Secondly, you write: “The price of a good in money terms is a measure of the market value of that good.”. This is no doubt a difficult subject. Nevertheless, I dare to argue that what is measured “in money terms” is the price, not any value. But if you by “market value” mean “market price”, we are in agreement. You are right in that a price needs to be always viewed in relation to other prices. It doesn’t express anything absolute. The (prices of the) goods I buy might be high relative to my salary or relative to prices of identical products offered for sale by other merchants, but not high in themselves.

What do you say? I can see that you have been wrestling with subjects I’ve been wrestling with during the last couple of years, so I’m sure we can learn something from each other.