Abstract
"The paper defends the view that money is any continuant used as a medium of exchange, a view dubbed the pure commodity theory of money. By contrast to the standard commodity theory, which equates money with a material commodity which spontaneously ends up being used as a means of exchange, the pure commodity theory does not place any requirement on the origin or materiality of money. I then compare the pure commodity theory with four main rivals. On the credit theory, money is a kind of debt or claim; on the abstract theory, money is a position on a ratio scale. On the property theory, money is some property of an agent, namely the agent's purchasing power. On the institutional theory, money is a system of rules.
I argue that the credit theory and the abstract theory are in fact versions of the pure commodity theory, for claims and positions on ratio scale, properly understood, are continuants used as media of exchange. I argue that the property and the institutional theories are better construed not as theories about money, but as a theory about closely connected phenomena. The property theory is a theory about the purchasing power conferred by money. The institutional theory is a theory about what explains the existence and maintenance of money. One central strand is that there exists animportant category of exchangeable goods, intangible goods, the neglect of which leads to dismiss the commodity theory on poor grounds."
