Particularly as the workshop I just attended in Seattle covered this subject from several perspectives.

Theses 1 to 3.

Money - like its twin institution Property - is universally regarded as an Object, rather than as the Relationship it actually is. When you refer to "some" Money in Thesis 2 the reference is implicitly to Money as an Object. Likewise, I suggest the Brinks Mat guards see the Money in their van as an Object.

Moreover, you are missing the important point that a "Buyer" need not be an "Owner" - it is enough for him to be "credit worthy" to either a Seller, or a Bank.

The best description of Money I know is by E C Riegel in his book "Flight from Inflation".

    Breviate

The purpose of money is to facilitate barter by splitting the transaction into two parts, the acceptor of money reserving the power to requisition value from any trader at any time. .

The method of money is to employ a concept of value in terms of a value unit dissociated from any object.

The monetary unit is any adopted value, which value is the basis relative to which other values may be expressed.

The monetary system is a cooperative agreement among traders to regulate the issuance of monetary instruments, to express and exchange values in terms of the monetary unit, and to keep account of such exchanges.

Monetary instruments may be any evidences of monetary transactions that serve the convenience of trade and the purpose of accountancy.

We must distinguish "Money's Worth" - which is an Object to which the (Subject) Individual relates via the Property relationship - from Money.

Theses 4 to 9

Your analysis is - as with conventional and Marxist economics - entirely anthropocentric. You assume the Sun of Capital goes around the Earth of Labour.

In fact a very large number of us "own" rights to streams of land rental value through the institution of Property in (ownership of) land. Likewise the streams of value which derive from ownership of productive assets via the institution of the Joint Stock Limited Liability Company ("the "Corporation").

As for "Labour power" that appears to me to be an extremely tired and obsolescent concept. A very large - and increasing - amount of value in circulation is the "use value" not of our "labour power" but of the enclosed "Commons" of Knowledge, through the institution of "Intellectual Property". eg software, books, videos, art, film, patents.

Our Money today consists of Credit issued by a credit institution aka a Bank. Over two thirds of Money created in the US and UK came into existence as loans secured over property. It had nothing whatever to do with claims over Labour power and everything to do with claims over land rentals.

Only a very small proportion of money in existence - but a large part of that in circulation - is related to the future production of labour power by individuals.

Theses 10 to 14

Indeed we do have a "deficit-based" monetary system based upon "Money as Debt" consisting of interest-bearing loans created by Banks.

In my opinion - recently published here

Peak Credit - a Flight to Simplicity

the true economic function of a Bank is in fact that of guaranteeing the credit of individuals.

Theses 15 to 18

The inevitable consequence of the combination of:

(a)exponential growth mandated by compound interest;

(b)the profit motive; and

(c)the uncompensated enclosure of "Commons";

is the concentration of "wealth" in fewer and fewer hands.

This was recognised as far back as Babylonian times and led to "Jubilee" years of debt forgiveness. More recently the result of mathematical unsustainability has been resource wars, booms and busts.

Thesis 19

Not "the" alternative, I would submit, but rather "an" alternative, and moreover, one that has not been conspicuously successful.

To monetise only the individual's "time value"/ or Labour power is to ignore entirely the vast bulk of value in existence which is in fact the use value of "Capital" and "Land" (which I prefer not to conflate).

It is necessary also to recognise that Capital/ Land is in fact also "productive". ie that conventional anthropocentric assumptions have the same relationship to Reality as Ptolemaic Cosmology.

I believe that it is possible - and indeed necessary - to also monetise energy units and units of land rental value, and while doing so to apply Henry George's principle that those who have exclusive rights of "ownership" of a Commons should compensate those they exclude.

Thesis 20

The alternative to a deficit-based economy is IMHO an "asset-based" economy. Credit need not, and indeed IMHO should not be money, but is inherent in a monetary system.

Moreover, a financial system involving Profit and Loss may be conventional, but it is unnecessary. Within a partnership-based economy, there is no profit and no loss, but rather the creation and exchange of value in all its forms, tangible and intangible.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson