Based on Aristotle, money should have the next qualities:
Durability
Portability
Divisibility
Intrinsic value
Intrinsic Financial Value
So Aristotle considered intrinsic value — the exchange value money would also have even without having to be money — like a property without which money grew to become impossible, or at best unsound. However, not just his concept of seem money was wrong because it seemed to be the alternative from the truth: intrinsic value is exactly what earns money unsound. To know why, let’s start by defining money whatsoever questionable possible way:
Cash is anything recognized as payment for products or services and repayment of financial obligations.
Due to the internet, everything becomes easy and the advent of crypto games reformed the world entirely because this giving the Real Experience of a player to play in a real casino.
Then, let’s spot the different meanings that cash being “recognized as payment for products or services and repayment of financial obligations” needs to buyers or debt redeemers and sellers or creditors:
To sellers and creditors, this means their accepting the cash correspondingly of buyers and debt redeemers.
To buyers and debt redeemers, this means the acceptance of the money correspondingly by sellers and creditors.
Finally, let’s observe that any buyers or debt redeemers ignoring the acceptance of the money correspondingly by sellers and creditors could be identical to the insufficient that acceptance. Money must be known even by just prospects and debtors to become “recognized as payment for products or services and repayment of financial obligations”: it should be socially instead of individually recognized as money. Then, we are able to complete its definition:
Cash is anything recognized as payment for products or services and repayment of financial obligations, as lengthy as already known even by just prospects and debtors to become so.
From Aristotle to Adam Cruz to Marx to Milton Friedman, we’ve never made this type of among accepting money and being aware of its acceptance by others. Rather, by presuming that financial acceptance doesn’t need its very own social awareness, we’ve lengthy been discussing the false belief on individually instead of socially recognized money.
While, despite acceptance based on evaluation, the resulting lack of any actual (socially recognized) type of money makes financial evaluation unnecessary, whether by sellers, buyers, creditors, or debt redeemers. This possible lack of any look at money then reduces its needed exchange value for an intrinsic property from the financial object itself, hence to simply another preexisting reason behind its acceptance as money — Aristotle’s “intrinsic” financial value.
So requiring money with an intrinsic value is a result of confusing between individually and socially recognized money: actual financial value requires no more individual but rather already social (reciprocally aware) acceptance of their own representation by an item, being thus never intrinsic to that particular object.
Indeed, financial history overwhelmingly implies that anything could be money, whether being otherwise valuable or otherwise. So whomever advocates “intrinsic value” as a way of “restoring” financial soundness must either completely abandon that concept or find another thing to “back” it — apart from the requirement of money to possess this kind of extrinsic financial value.
In such a scenario, you should seek psychology questions and answers online.
