If relationship, as a force oblique to their individual wills which draws two parties into the field of each other's recognition, is mediated by an exchange, by something passing from one to the other, or both ways, and generally more rarefied than a heart, then the substance of this exchange represents a certain commerce between souls. In the first place the exchange is of something immediately felt, of patent value, and only later, and this is where relationship proper begins, is it a promise and a faith. The analogy with money seems obvious, and although it is limited, it suggests all kinds of curious variations. One might contrast liquid with illiquid assets, spending one's capital with living from the interest, or consider rates of exchange, convertibility, or what it would mean to invest or to speculate in shares, in futures or in options. Most important is the fact that the conditional nature of the instruments of exchange means that two parties are never enough; where there is an exchange of acts of faith there must always be a third party, often in collective form, to guarantee, to witness, and to enforce the transaction. This is all aimed at social behaviour, and despite the colourful terminology that arises with money as being the most general of currencies, it seems natural to suppose that it is the economic register that was modelled upon it, as being very much the prior. None of this yet speaks to the ontological level that underpins currency itself. If in the words of the old song, 'you're nobody 'till somebody loves you', what is this mysterious and fragile market-making which transforms a nobody into a somebody?