That’s actually the valuing (wealth) definition of money. But money doesn’t have to be that way. There are economic theories that propose decoupling value from debt by having two different mechanisms for each function. Part of the inequality reproduction problem is that both debt and wealth are coupled in our current fiat money systems without any real underlying value equivalence.

First forms of money made sense when money was made of valuable metals. The value was intrinsic to the physical object. Debt was managed by paper accounting. Or paper money like in China. Then paper debt was based on gold, like the early xix century money. Finally, modern fiat money stopped being backed up by gold and today it is purely debt, though it is still used as value. Which has accelerated the negative effects of capitalist labor extraction.

Like, Jeff Bezos doesn’t do $55k per minute of labor. But, amazon does extract and steal that amount of labor and funnels it towards his pockets. While the workers receive an infinitesimal fraction of their own labor. They can do that because there’s no friction from having to transform said labor into an actually valuable medium, like silver or gold.

This is why the other response to OP’s question is that fiat money is actually infinite. The us treasury snaps their fingers and billions come into existence. It’s pure abstract value.