On a different note, I think your idea of money not being consumable is problematic for me. The idea I have about consumption is: "The relatively irreversible change in the essence of a thing towards something less desirable for the owner" In the case you were explaining, money passed from one person to another when they traded. Its essence changed from being "mine" to "not mine" in a somewhat irreversible way. In my opinion, that looks like it was consumed. Is there something I'm missing in this case?