Mr. Veeder,

How about two reasons, off the top of my head

1. Coins and paper are more portable and durable than many goods:
chicken, houses, bridges, etc.  (absurdly obvious)
2. It is more immediate and more easily coordinated than an exchange of
services (I'll do your roof if you'll fix my teeth - if I live that long
and don't move away or change my mind).  (obvious)
But then a bit more obscurely, 3. In order to function,  these
intrinsically valueless medallions and pieces of paper must have the
confidence of the community from top to bottom.  This means that the
ruling class (of whatever nature, from despotic to benevolent)  who
needed the monetary system to control commerce, was required to support
this confidence in order to have these conveniences.  That meant
punishing members of their own class for monetary fraud.  What a concept
... equal justice for all!

Over time, this confidence was seen to extend into the future.  The
industrial revolution was fueled by the excess money which forward
looking individuals could/would save and invest.  Excess pigs wouldn't do
the job.

Or is this just a novice's restatement of the traditional textbook
explanation?

Don
>
>I suppose my discussion raises the question: Why do we use a system of
>*circulating* tokens (ie. money)? Clearly, circulating money was a
>necessary
>ingredient in the "success" of the industrial revolution, but I don't
>accept
>the traditional textbook explanations of HOW circulating money
>contributed to
>that "success". This is (another) problem which I am attempting to
>solve...
>
>Harry Veeder
>
>
>