Permanent wealth consists of all those products of labor which are not themselves _transferable_ into life, comfort or happiness, but which may at all times be _exchanged_ for that which is thus transferable into that which can be used to continue life. Gold, silver and precious stones are among the best illustrations there are of permanent wealth. Transitory wealth consists of all those products of labor of which direct use is made to maintain life or to add to its comforts and happiness, and which, _by_ such process, are absorbed _into_ and become _a part of_ the life of humanity. Transitory wealth, it will be seen, is much the more important of the two, since, if people only possessed permanent wealth, their life could not be continued an hour by it, unless there were a possibility of exchanging it for the necessities of life. It would seem that _all_ kinds of wealth are intrinsically valuable, since its various kinds may be either _directly_ used to maintain life or may be _exchanged_ for those which will maintain life. Wealth and intrinsic value, then, mean the same thing. But what does the term _money_ mean: or has it no necessary significance in the inquiry? There was a time when there was no such _thing_ or _word_ as money; but at that time there was life to continue, for which wealth was necessary. It seems that _wealth_ had existence before _money_ was thought of. Wealth is substance, of which money is the principle or representative, but which, in itself, has no intrinsic value. Money is an invention made to _represent_ wealth, or value, in order that its various kinds may be exchanged with facility, or that they may be exchanged without the absolute and direct and immediate receipt and delivery of one product of labor for another product of labor. All the products of labor may be exchanged _directly_, and without the use of any representative or go-between, which for the time being stands representative of the one or the other, but _not so well_ at all times and under all circumstances. Money is _anything_ which stands representative of any product of labor; that is, that can be made use of to facilitate the exchange of any of the results of labor, which are wealth. A representative of anything cannot be the thing itself, therefore, if money is a representative of wealth it is not itself wealth. Were A, B and C to at all times exchange their products between themselves by _direct transfer_, they would have _no use_ for money; they would exchange—deliver and receive—_actual_ values. But when A desires from B some of his products, himself not having on hand any of his products which B desires, he receives from B his value and gives him his representative of value—his note—promising that at a future time he will deliver B the _actual_ value which he desires.