Let me put it this way ...

Let me give you an example to explain my view of money or "financial instruments".

I have end stage renal disease and I am being evaluated for a kidney transplant. In the evaluation process — looking forward — they told me that if I had a volunteer kidney donor who was not a good tissue match for me, I could participate in a multiparty transplant group where my volunteer would give her/his kidney to someone else and the other person's volunteer would give her/his kidney to me. This could involve as many participants as could be efficiently — in medical terms — handled.

Let's call the agreement between the parties a "transplant agreement" or "transplant instrument". It is quite obvious that the agreement is only worth more than the paper it is printed on IF there are enough kidneys to go around. And if — for example — twice as many agreements come in play as available kidneys because transplant hospitals "sold" more transplant agreements in the short term simply because they could earn a huge profit from selling the transplant agreements ... and then a need for kidneys from individuals holding transplant agreements exceeded the number of actual kidneys available ... Dah! The market would collapse, wouldn't it?

The same is true of money or "financial instruments". They make the exchange of diverse items in multifaceted transactions over time and distance possible ... but only if I am able to get something I want for a price I am willing to pay when I want it ... for the money I have ... unless I can borrow some ...