those who have most property are sure to need the largest provision for the service of the body.970 Thus the richest, as being the most needy, are the most depraved (μοχθηρότατα διακείμενοι) and the most unhappy, and therefore external wealth is essentially evil.971 > Such a characteristically Cynic doctrine is essentially ascetic, and subversive of the very foundations of economics.
The Eryxias hints at a definition of capital in the distinction between the direct consumption of wealth and its use for further production.972
But it is far from the author’s purpose to define capital, and he makes nothing of the distinction. The relation of money to wealth is also dealt with incidentally.
Like Aristotle, he criticizes the definition of wealth as “the possession of much money,”973 on the ground that the money of one country may not pass current in another, and hence cannot be true wealth.974
This is suggestive of the Cynic theory of fiat money, since the examples used are those of the worthless currency of Carthage, Sparta, and Ethiopia.975
But the argument proves too much, since it would be equally as effective against counting the house of Polytion as true wealth. There is, moreover, a peculiar shift in this part of the dialogue between money and property.
The theory of the author is further upheld by the argument that a condition can be conceived in which our bodily needs might be supplied without silver or gold, in which case these metals would be worthless.976 However, the necessity of intrinsic value for international currency is