[shoo]

Perhaps if you explicitly state the FROM and TO components of the direction of favour, it makes sense:

E.g. money is token of favour FROM <government> TO <current-bearer-of-token>.

Your general point about looking at things in more than one way is sound.

[erikb]

I'm not sure if I get that <government> part. Is that only for the example? If I convince you that I have a cool t-shirt for you, then I give you the t-shirt and you give me the money, not the government, and if I get the money depends mostly on your decision if the t-shirt has value to you or not. There might be cases where I could convince the government that you should give me money, but in the case of the t-shirt that's unlikely.

Using that example can you understand the confusion and explain more in detail? Thanks.

[shoo]

The decision depends upon what value I think the t-shirt has, what value I think the money token has, what value you think the t-shirt has, and what value you think the money token has.

I guess I am thinking of money as being a token of favour against a third party (<government>) not involved in the transaction, and moreover being a token for a favour that will never be invoked.

edit: From this perspective it seems reasonable to ask "what difference does it make what the third-party is?" and "if the favour is never to be invoked, why think of it as a favour at all?".

edit 2: the "favour" and the "value" here are quite different ideas, if that part is confusing.