If I had not money, I would be in trouble.
=>Without money, I would be in trouble. (i.e. If ...ed not=Without)

Then, is this rewriting also possible?

If I had money, I wouldn't be in trouble like this.
=>With money, I wouldn't be in trouble like this. (i.e. If ...ed=With)

Theoretically, it may be possible. But I kind of feel uncomfortable using 'with' as subjunctive. I cannot detect in 'with' the feel of 'unreality' or 'impossibleness' that the subjunctive mood has...
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 3) 
1. "Without an original post, this thread would never have happened."

2. "With a few more posts, this thread would have reached page 2."

Yes; they seem equivalent in terms of concreteness.

I wonder whether the "subjunctive air" is something we import when we paraphrase, under the stimulus of the "would" clause. For instance, there's no need for the with-clause to represent a subjunctive:

3. With this ticket, you will have unlimited access to the world's top nightspots.

In fact, I'm not sure the with-clause carries mood or tense, as such; it seems more participial by nature:

4. With a rifle, I could hit him. => Having a rifle, I could hit him.

(Presumably the "instrumental" version would be:

4a. With a rifle, I could hit him => Using a rifle, I could hit him.)

But that's still a long way from an explanation...

Hmm...Maybe I should have used other word than 'concreteness'...Maybe 'tangibility' instead, or something.

OK, let me explan how I see it, a wild-and maybe strange-guess.

In my opinion, the air, or the feel, of 'with' is 'togetherness'; it has 'It-is-there' kind of air. And such vividness will be associated easily with the feel of realism, rather than with that of counter-factuality. On the other hand, the feel of 'without' is void; it's 'Not there'. And such voidness will smoothly lead to the feel of counter-factuality, much more smoothly than 'with', which, as mentioned above, has the air of vividness due to its clear image of 'It-is-there'.

I think that's why 'without' is frequently used as subjunctive whereas 'with' is not.

I don't know if my English makes sense here, but that's how I think.

What do you think, MrP?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
That's an intriguing thought.

Let me mull it over. Then I'll repost.