MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 8
th, 2024 at 4:09pm:
Frank wrote on Mar 8
th, 2024 at 4:05pm:
You are not suggesting, are you, that all goods, labour, services were exchanged first into cows and then the cows were exchanged for other goods, labour etc.
That is exactly how cows were used.
If a clan didn't have any cows, or not enough as a medium of exchange, they had to resort solely to bartering, begging or offering their labour in exchange for food and shelter.
So they were bartering things for cows.
The thing about cows, versus money, is that they are not portable and do not have a variety of denominations. Additionally, money being an abstract concept, it has no other function than as a medium of echange into which any tradable value can be readily 'translated'. A cow is not money j uyst because it has value and can be exchanged for other things of roughly similar value?
The entire point of money - and partially the mystery of it - is that it is totally abstract, like the measure of time, yet very well suited for the performance of its function, unlike cows or bulls.
It's no accident that money and time are uncountable - how much money/ time do you have? - and only their measure is countable as dollars, hours, cows.
The reason gold and silver are valued was because of their lustre and extreme scarcity, and the immense effort that was required to mine them - no mystery at all.
The reason cows were valued is because of their obvious immense intrinsic value.
In the modern age, many question why gold and silver should still be considered an international medium of exchange at all, which is why their traders vehemently and daily insist that they have intrinsic value.