In the context Krugman was speaking about, money is more of a signifier of debt. The question he answered was, who owes who money? For government debt, it's usually we owe ourselves, not another party, like merchants or banks or other states. In that sense, we're able to manage the debt in whatever way benefits us. If it's another party, they'll manage it in whatever way benefits them. > the 'conservative' approach to currency, ... might go hand in hand with a worldview less tolerant of abstraction. That's an interesting idea. It might be that some people feel more comfortable with the symbols of abstraction than with the abstractions themselves. So, a political figure is evil, not a political movement creates evil conditions, or money is a "precious" (but otherwise useless) metal, not money is an amount owed.
True. And as Krugman argues, debt is not so much a thing you owe, but a rate at which you pay, and also, to a large extent, with government debt, we are paying ourselves. So when we hear things like "each American family owes $50k" or whatever it is, it's really pushing that non-abstract notion of debt. It's calling it a pound of flesh when it really isn't. It might be that some people feel more comfortable with the symbols of abstraction than with the abstractions themselves. Like I said, it's just a thought. :) But it might help explain why someone with economic views like Ron Paul names their kid Rand. This comic comes to mind: http://i.imgur.com/xEXIB.gif
