Money has to be divided.
Money must be valuable in and of itself.
To what question did Aristotle's characteristics provide an answer? The question of what distinguishes good money from bad money. This is a completely different question than "what is money." When we question whether kind of money is better or worse, we're assuming that we already know what money is and isn't... a significant assumption.
Many commodities have served as'money' (primarily as a store of value and a medium of exchange) throughout recorded history: cattle (pecus... Roman origin of pecuniary), salt, and so on (origin of salary) Cowry shells, cocoa beans, and even cigarettes in WWII POW camps... and, of course, gold and silver throughout the ages
Many things have served as'money' (primarily as a store of value and medium of exchange) throughout recorded history, including cattle (pecus... Roman origin of pecuniary), salt (origin of salary), cowry shells, cacao beans, even cigarettes in WWII POW camps... and, of course, gold and silver throughout the ages.
However, before we consider what is better money, we must first determine what is money... good or bad... and what is not money. Studying history, specifically the history of money... and the history of real vs. fake money, is one way to grasp this dichotomy.
Cattle, salt, cowry shells, cacao beans, cigarettes, monetary metals, and so on are all stuff,' meaning they are real things. There isn't a single 'promise' or 'IOU' among them. Paper money,' on the other hand, is nothing more than a promise... of something.
Let's simplify this by considering a pound of sugar as the stuff... and an 'IOU a pound of sugar' as the promise. I take a pound of sugar from you and give it to you in exchange for a pound of sugar.