I think the economics of money tends to compete on which common sense, to follow. Taken to the extreme, you could say that money doesn't matter. Only resources and the real economy matter.

That, IMO, is negated by the history of money economics affecting the real economy. Money shortage is a thing. If the economy hadn't been funded, the resource shuffling wouldn't have been possible... or more painful. People don't get compensated for resources and labour in exchange for goods and labour. They get compensated in money, which is at some point down the cascade, credit. If money is short, it doesn't matter what the productive capacity. That reshuffling doesn't happen smoothly.

So, no... I think. At least, not in a sense that commons sense implications can be applied. Money isn't just an abstraction over resources. It's a thing unto itself. Money supply issues, hyperinflation, financial shocks, credit shocks and have been more likely to affect major real economy problems than supply of actual stuff like oil. Oil shock is a thing. There definitely are real examples of crippling resource shortages. More often though, money supply is the issue.