Money, what is it good for?

An increase in the supply of a producers’ good increases, ceteris paribus, the supply of a consumers’ good. An increase in the supply of a consumers’ good (when there has been no decrease in the supply of another good) is demonstrably a clear social benefit; for someone’s “real income” has increased and no one’s has decreased.

Money, on the contrary, is solely useful for exchange purposes. Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly as a producers’ good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock and produces nothing. Land or capital is always in the form of some specific good, some specific productive instrument. Money always remains in some­one’s cash balance.

... says Rothbard in Man, Economy and State (chapter 11). Also, earlier in the same chapter:

At any one time there is a given total stock of the money com­modity. This stock will, at any time, be owned by someone. It is therefore dangerously misleading to adopt the custom of Amer­ican economists since Irving Fisher’s day of treating money as somehow “circulating,” or worse still, as divided into “circulat­ing money” and “idle money.” This concept conjures up the image of the former as moving somewhere at all times, while the latter sits idly in “hoards.” This is a grave error. There is, actually, no such thing as “circulation,” and there is no mysterious arena where money “moves.” At any one time all the money is owned by someone, i.e., rests in someone’s cash balance. Whatever the stock of money, therefore, people’s actions must bring it into accord with the total demand for money to hold, i.e., the total demand for money that we have just discussed. For even pre­-income money acquired in exchange must be held at least momentarily in one’s cash balance before being transferred to some­one else’s balance.

There are many things in "modern" economics which are basically wrong or false or misleading. Rothbard cuts through the fat and brings us the meat.