http://mises.org/humanaction/chap17sec4.asp paragraphs 5-7.
Mises claims that a medium of exchange must first have industrial demand in order for it to become a medium of exchange. What does he mean by industrial demand? Would food qualify? Would art qualify? Would services qualify?
Ful quote, with my comments in bold:
Thus the demand for a medium of exchange is the composite of two partial demands: the demand displayed by the intention to use it in consumption and production
[and food and art and services qualify, though not sue what you mean by services]
and that displayed by the intention to use it as a medium of exchange.[7]
With regard to modern metallic money one speaks of the industrial demand
[so when talking about metals, people don't usually eat them, art is a yes, and again, not sure what you mean by servcies]
and of the monetary demand.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Services would be a promise of future service. This could be in the form of a voucher for future service, a gift card at a service company, etc.
Would everything that has value to someone qualify for "industrial demand"? Is there anything that has value yet would not qualify under the umbrella term "industrial demand"?
If you read his paragraph carefully, he first talks about any possible thing under the sun. Rubber, peach fuzz, whatever. He says that anything the stuff is needed for [except as change in the wallet to spend] constitutes "demand displayed by the intention to use it in consumption and production".
He then goes to a special case, because in his time thats what money was made of, metals. The need for metals that he called the demand displayed by the intention to use it in consumption and production though varied, was given the name "industrial demand" in this special case of maetals. Probably because thats where 99% of the need was.
Would things that are collected purely for the sake of collection qualify? That is, items that are not "consumed" nor "used in production" in any way besides just the act of having them? Trading cards and art (already addressed) come to mind.
Depends on what you mean as "collection". For example jewelry is widely accepted for collecting but also for consupmtion purposes(wearing on special occasions, a social status symbol ect...). Collectors coins and cards on the other hand are not as widely demanded for. Simply building it for the sake of "collecting" runs the risk of not reaching a larger audiance. In other words its not ever going to be widely accepted.
I am only asking whether collectibles fit within the definition of "industrial demand". I am making no arguments related to the rate of growth of such collectibles.
In my mind Smiling Dave's first response to you answers that.
@Micah71381
Would things that are collected purely for the sake of collection qualify? That is, items that are not "consumed" nor "used in production" in any way besides just the act of having them?
expenditure on something that brings satisfaction per-se (like rare coins) is consumption, even though they are not really consumed. to make a crude example, when I pay a prostitute, that is consumption, even though the prostitute is not physically destroyed (or even kept at all) :)