[bigbluesax]

People have been organizing the same on a favours basis for longer than money has existed. I just don't understand how money could possibly qualify as an "unit" here. Now how much someone is willing to spend on something is obviously related to how much they care about it, but to call it the "unit of caring" seems a bit presumptuous.

Through on reflection, I'm not sure what the author is trying to say anyway. He says:

> In our society, this common currency of expected utilons is called "money". It is the measure of how much society cares about something.

But who exactly is society here, and how do you choose to interpret it's spending? It seems much too vague to really argue about.