1. _Money in all its money uses is an indirect agent, to be judged just as other indirect agents are._ The key to this section is the thought that the function of money is to serve as an indirect agent. Money is often, by a figure of speech, called a tool. Literally a tool is a bit of material which, taken in the hand, is used to apply force to other things, to shape them or move them. Figuratively, this is just what money does. A man takes it in his hand not to get enjoyment out of it, but to apply force, to move something, and that which he moves is the other commodity. Adam Smith aptly likened money to the road and wagons that transport goods, thus gratifying wants by putting things into a more convenient place. Money is only one of a multitude of forms of wealth. It is not even the most "valuable"; it has value just as other indirect agents have. The loss caused by taking away an indirect agent entirely is greater than the benefit usually attributed to it. Its utility in the extremest conditions is greater than its marginal utility under ordinary conditions. Food is not credited in the market with enormous value, but if starvation threatened, all else would be given for food. In a like manner, each individual values money according to the importance of the marginal service it renders, but the marginal service is far from measuring the loss that would be caused by the entire disuse of money. In a society without money, industrial processes would be very different, and exchange would be hampered in almost inconceivable ways. It is true, therefore, that money is an economic factor of high importance, but it is not so indispensable as many other factors to which far less value is attributed. [Sidenote: Why a poor community lacks money] A poor community has little money because it cannot afford more; it gets along with less money than is convenient just as it gets along with fewer indirect agents of every other kind than it could use. Pioneers in a poor community where the average wealth is low, cannot afford to keep a large number of wagons, plows, good roads, or school-houses. If the community were wealthy enough it would have more of these and of other things, and great as is the convenience of money, poorer communities have to do with little of it. It is, therefore, a confusion of cause and effect for poor communities to imagine that their poverty is due to lack of money. [Sidenote: The use of money as a common denominator]