Frequenty I stumble upon comparison of money with energy. However, concept of money defies every postulate established for the concept of energy (meaning laws of thermodynamics). Is there good reason to use money-energy analogy which overrides apparent inconsistencies?

How do you measure energy on a worldwide basis? For example, one could dump thousands of gallons of gasoline into some villages in central Africa and it would mean less than nothing ...it would be a hinderance. Yet dump a ton of dried wood for their fires, and they'd think they were wealthy beyond dreams. That exact same scenario in, say, England would be reversed.

Money, on the other hand, even to the people in central Africa has some value because they can take it to the local merchants to buy food.

If I've misunderstood your question, then please feel free to let me know ...hopefully without calling me an idiot or something equally nasty.

Baron Max

Money can be compared to energy only at the microeconomic level, in accounting. Balancing the books of a company or a household is analogous to applying the principle of conservation of energy.

It's a perfectly terrible analogy at the macroeconomic level because there is no principle of "conservation of money" at that level.

It's a perfectly terrible analogy at the macroeconomic level because there is no principle of "conservation of money" at that level.
If it's so then paradigm of the market as the most "effective" allocator of the resources is questionable. Because market allocates resources in such a way as to increase the amount of the conceptual money in the system (or rather in pockets of the pillars of the system). The amount of monetary increment generally has little to do with "energy"(meaning something tangible, eternal (in units of time of the human species) and generally usefull) or public good in general for that matter. Separation of the "money" with common sense becomes more and more apparent with time.

Frequenty I stumble upon comparison of money with energy. However, concept of money defies every postulate established for the concept of energy (meaning laws of thermodynamics). Is there good reason to use money-energy analogy which overrides apparent inconsistencies?
Money is a tangible form of potential energy.

Exchange of money for something of equal value is a form of kinetic energy.

A lump of Silver in the marketplace is worth nothing if there's nothing someone else is willing to exchange for it.

A garden-variety rock isn't very exciting stuff unless you're throwing it at someone else who's hurling their own rock back at you. ;)

Frequenty I stumble upon comparison of money with energy. However, concept of money defies every postulate established for the concept of energy (meaning laws of thermodynamics). Is there good reason to use money-energy analogy which overrides apparent inconsistencies?

Money is energy.

Money is energy.

What kind of energy? "Money" doesn't follow 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics established for physical "energy". If money is the special kind of energy that don't follow those laws, then why persist in using the word? It could be called something like "attractor of human willingness to work".

The money energy analogy can be useful in restricted situations, such as trying to use similes to explain how there is only so much of something to go around. (Lets not get into inflation) But there is no direct correspondence between the two. Yet a global currency based upon money would I htink be somewhat practical if the entire world was at the same technological level of development, and the currency were restricted in some way. Theoretically it sounds good, in practise, well, I used to have some thoughts on it, but have forgotten them.

Assuming certain technological advances, matter may become so easy to manipulate that energy is the only thing of value left. (Or more specifically, low entropy energy...)

But I wouldn't expect that to happen for another few centuries :)