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 > > >