Economic systems evolution has reached a technical point where monetary tools are applied to satisfy all human needs, thus money is viewed as an omnipotent (religious) mechansim.The banking collateral for monetary credit (interest) is privatized nature (resources, locations); the money supply market is driven by private players while central banking tries to police this whole fiat interplay. Money does not behave neutral to the production function; the mass of monetary flow has distributive power in human societies; the flow is directed towards a maximal accumulation of private collaterals. Those who are running the monetary system  actually decide about the economic future of territorial political entities, e.g. the EU is not an optimal currency area and many current economic problems in Europe are caused by the common monetary unit of the Euro itself.

I would tend to see money not only as a general concept, but as part of the society's technological infrastructure, as in essence it is a mean to reduce transaction costs and hence lower total production costs in the economy. Hence of course many of the arguments of Stephen hold, in particular one: money is not neutral with regard to the production function. Or rather more specific: money is only neutral in a stationary setting, However, once one accounts for technological progress the impact of money changes, whenever the underlying technology changes. You may be interested in my book "Electronic Money and the Monetary Transmission Process" which discusses related issues.

https://cuvillier.de/en/shop/publications/1299-electronic-money-and-the-monetary-transmission-process

The technical definitions of the money supply are helpful in providing specified and commonly accepted measures of liquidity, at least in the United States.  Think of the operational, research, and policy challenges we would face if we only have a single definition of money. Limiting scholars to the use only one definition of money (i.e., pick one M1, M2, M3, ...) is unnecessarily restrictive and diminishes our ability to address vital issues.

I hope this helps.

Rob 

It´s esasy, Money is an  "official medium of payment recognized by law that can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation".

I would be inclined to modify Martha's definition, thus: "In practice, whatever asset  is generally acceptable as a means of payment, and can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation, may be regarded as money."

Hello Roy, 

Noy always whatever asset is acceptable as means of payment,, 

Martha - Please translate!    R

Technical definition is clear: Money is a medium of exchange for goods or services within an economy.

Money to most is simply a representation of their time.

Hello Roy:

Technical definition of money: The total amount of money in an economy. The narrow definition of money supply (classified as M0 or M1) includes notes and coins in circulation and money equivalents easily convertible into cash; the broad definition (M2, M3, M4) expands this to include various kinds of longer-term less liquid bank deposits.

It does not include other forms of wealth, such as investments, home equity, or assets. They must be sold to convert them to cash. It also does not include credit, such as loans, mortgages and credit cards

Akwasi Kusi You may follow this link: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-technical-definition-of-money-and-its-contemporary-relevance-to-the-analysis-of-money-supply

Dear Roy:

Sorry, because answer so late. I want to say tha money is medium of exchange"

I found this definition: " Money is an economic unit that functions as a generally recognized medium of exchange for transactional purposes in an economy. ... Money originates in the form of a commodity, having a physical property to be adopted by market participants as a medium of exchange".

Best regards