Nope, sorry, Jardine K Jardine. Won't wash.

>>You're projecting onto me your own process of reasoning<<

Money is simply one, of a number, of means of exchange. Just as a dog is simply one, of a number, of domesticated animals. Pari passu. They are interchangeable as domestic pets - some people indeed own both (quelle horreure!). Yet you rarely would confuse them with each other.

>>For example, assuming that eggs, being a means of exchange, are “money”<<

We have now agreed that we don't call it money. We call them eggs. Just like we don't call dogs, cats.

>>And it means a barter economy is a money economy. I’ve asked you whether it means that. You haven’t answered. Does it?<<

Not really. The word "barter" in fact directly implies the non-appearance of money. But that does not mean you cannot effectively employ a variety of monetary substitutes, between consenting adults.

Here's someone who agrees with me:

"...two of the author’s main contentions—first that money is not currency and that sovereign support for currency is not particularly important".

Readallaboutit...

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578009-good-guide-stuff-our-pockets-gold-rush

The example employed is centred on a seven-month period in which the Banks in Ireland went on strike in 1970 - gasp! no money!

"As cash ran out, people had to find a way of paying their regular bills, or even just stumping up for a pint of stout in a pub. What actually happened was that businesses started accepting IOUs or cheques for everything, even though there was no telling when the cash would be forthcoming. It helped that a lot of Irish life is lived locally: builders, greengrocers, mechanics and barmen all turned out to be dab hands at personal credit profiling. In short, Ireland developed a new class of money. Its currency was not backed by any central bank, but based solely on informal if surprisingly accurate credit scoring. And the currency was transferable: if certain people said the bond was good, then the bond was good."

That works for me.

>>what’s the point of legal tender laws?<<

I've already addressed that.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14998#259582

No-one agrees with your theory that cream puffs, and dildos, and railway cars are money, because it’s a cr@p theory obviously.

However if invincible ignorance and evasiveness were money, you’d be a millionaire.

Jardine

As Pericles's second I hereby throw in the towel.He's had enough, his egos badly bruised.

He's clearly out of his league in this division. Next bout we'll move him down a grade or three.

Nice try, individual.

>>No-one agrees with your theory that cream puffs, and dildos, and railway cars are money, because it’s a cr@p theory obviously.<<

Correction: that is not my theory.

"Money is simply one, of a number, of means of exchange. Just as a dog is simply one, of a number, of domesticated animals. Pari passu. They are interchangeable as domestic pets - some people indeed own both (quelle horreure!). Yet you rarely would confuse them with each other."

My "theory", as you call it, is that cream puffs will always be cream puffs. They are not money. Our legal tender laws only define what our notes and coins should look like in Australia, just as other countries have similar laws that cover their own notes and coins.

None of which has any bearing at all on what you might persuade Harvey Norman to accept in exchange for a TV set. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if they agreed to take your American Express travellers cheques, denominated in US dollars, if you asked them nicely. They will probably even accept your credit card, that happens to have its point of origin in Romania, despite the fact that that you intend to pay off in Lei.

You will still have some problems persuading them to take the Jardinian dollar, of course. But that's only because you haven't generated the requisite level of trust.

In short, I agree with Felix Martin, the author of "Money: The Unauthorised Biography", when he says i) money is not currency, and ii) sovereign support for currency is not particularly important.

The impact of ii), of course, is that it blows out of the water your "government has a perpetual interest in inflating the money supply, [and] fiat currency is one of the means by which it achieves this". The proof is that if you absent government from the equation, financial life still goes on. If inflation became a problem to the citizenry, they would find, and use, other means to transact. Just as the Irish did in 1970.

Oops, crossed addressee: that was for you, Jardine K. Jardine

"Nice try, individual"

"Oops, crossed addressee: that was for you, Jardine K. Jardine"

Which just proves my point.I'm throwing in towel.