ABSTRACT
Money, McCulloch held, was basically that commodity which was most acceptable to replace barter by acting as a measure and store of value.2 Such a commodity had to be readily exchangeable, divisible, transportable, of small bulk, not subject to loss in transit, durable, and constant in value over time and space;3 and as such it functioned so as to aid the division o f l a b o u r . 4 All this can be interpreted in terms of commodity money which is merely a veil.5 But McCulloch also states that
* See in particular D. Patinkin, Money Interest and Prices, second edition, New York, 1965, pp. 622-33; G. S. Becker and W.J. Baumol, 'The Classical Monetary Theory: The Outcome of the Discussion', Economica, N.S., Vol. X I X (1952), pp. 355-76; G. C. Archibald and R. G. Lipsey, 'Monetary and Value Theory: A Critique of Lange and Patinkin', Review of Economic Studies, Vol. X X V I (1958), pp. 1-22; 'A Symposium on Monetary Theory' (including comments by Baumol, R. W. Clower, and M. L. Burstein, F. H. Hahn, R.J. Ball, and R. Bodkin on the ArchibaldLipsey article with the latter authors' reply) Review of Economic Studies, Vol. XXVIII (i960), pp. 29-56; and R. W. Clower 'Classical Monetary Theory Revisited', Economica, N.S., Vol. X X X (1963), pp. 165-70.
