We know of no society historically in which “money” and “markets” did not coexist: in common parlance the term “money” has always meant objects that are routinely treated as acceptable means of payment by marketors. In the last century, money was often described by economists as a “veil,” because it was thought to mask the “true” nature of trade, which was thought “really” to consist in “the exchange of commodities for commodities”; but that view obscures a more important truth: in every civilized community for more than three centuries specialized media of exchange have served to enable private marketors efficiently to coordinate individual economic activities over an ever-wider diversity of areas of economic and geographical experience.#
If controversy seems especially common in economics and other social sciences, that is probably because they use language closer to ordinary speech than do, say, mechanics or biochemistry. With respect to exact sciences, one must feel expert (or be mildly demented) to quarrel comfortably with professionals; but one has merely to be alive to quarrel comfortably with economists and their kind – or so one infers from the remarks of media pundits and politicians.#