I think he/she trying to say that money must be symbolic, intrinsically worthless, or else you are essentially exchanging two goods i.e. barter. When you consi

I think he/she trying to say that money must be symbolic, intrinsically worthless, or else you are essentially exchanging two goods i.e. barter. When you consider cattle as money this argument is somewhat valid but when you look at our current system of paper and electronic money, it's pretty clear that the cost of paper and ink is negligible. My question to you is the following: There are many intrinsic properties of a money (portability, divisibility, etc.) and there is one important extrinsic property of money: acceptability. Why/how does one form of money become more acceptable than another?