I did say it gets abstract, and into some stuff that's highly debatable. Interestingly, economists (also sociologists, historians, etc.) disagree agree on what

I did say it gets abstract, and into some stuff that's highly debatable. Interestingly, economists (also sociologists, historians, etc.) disagree agree on what money is. For the purposes of this topic though... I think it's sufficient that marketable securities sit under "current assets" on a balance sheet, alongside "cash & equivalents." Say an investor buys a new share in uber for $35. Her balance sheet isn't meaningfully changed. Uber's bank account has grown by $35. I'm not saying that the accounting doesn't work out. The $35 isn't counted as revenue, and doesn't impact earnings. Still... $35 has now appeared in one account without disappearing from another. Again, I'm not saying the accounting is dodgy. Theoretically, when you buy a $2 ice cream then you have a $2 ice cream and 2 fewer dollars. Your "balance sheet" nets the same amount. Same thing when a woodshop buys timber. But for most practical purposes in the modern economy, a company's "total assets" don't matter much. "Current assets" do. Whether or not you want that money (or even currency) creation is interesting, but it works the same as money in practice. Gold, sovereign notes, bank bonds... Same result as shares.