[Lurker]

Money is just one more good among others.

Insert rueful chuckle here. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Just because a thing can be treated as if it were another thing doesn't make it that other thing.

Now, naturally congress cannot fully bind its successors.

Congress can not bind any of its successor Congresses at all. What one Congress giveth, another can take away.

[JasonC]

Money is just one asset whose demand fluctuates like that for any other, it is not wealth, nor does it have any stable relation to income or wealth my any mechanical gearing. The errors of non economists on the point go back to the 18th century, and at bottom it is always the same error. They think that money merely represents other goods without being another good itself, but they are wrong.

"just because a thing can be treated as if it were another thing"

No, "economic goods" has a definition, and money falls within that definition. It is not "another thing". It is like objecting to the statement that 2 is a number.

And yes, congress can and does bind its predecessors in procedural ways. The cloture rule in the senate may stand as an example, but entitlement legislation is another. Such laws require new votes to change a pattern of spending but none to continue that pattern. Since it is harder to pass new laws, this does bind successor legislatures somewhat. Not totally, as I said myself - with a sufficient majority any of its own rules can be changed. The same is true of all law and indeed, every social practice imaginable.