His main contention is that there is a vital distinction between domestic economy, whether of householder (οἰκονόμος) or statesman, and the art of acquisition or finance, as usually pursued. The primary function of the art of finance is to provide, while that of domestic economy is to use what is provided.742 There are, however, many methods of acquisition (κτητική; χρηματιστική), some of which truly belong to the sphere of domestic economy.743 The provision of all that is furnished by nature herself, as necessary to human existence, then, if not already at hand (ὑπάρχειν), belongs properly to domestic economy.744 It both uses and provides genuine wealth, such as is limited in amount (οὐκ ἄπειρος) yet sufficient for independence (αὐτάρκεια) and the good life.745 But the use of such wealth is its chief business.746 The other kind of acquisition, which is unlimited, or chrematistik, is contrary to nature, and is not in the province of domestic economy.747 This unnatural finance, since it deals chiefly in the exchange of money and other commodities, may be termed retail trade (καπηλική).748 Though itself false, it is a logical outgrowth (κατὰ λόγον) of the true form of exchange that is limited to actual needs749 as a result of the invention of money.750 But the real reason for its pursuit is to satisfy an evil and unlimited desire for material things.751 It produces money merely through the exchange of money (δι1α χρημάτων μεταβολῆς),[##] and its beginning and end is unlimited currency.752
This false form of acquisition is often confused with necessary exchange, because both deal with money.753 Their aims, however, are quite diverse.