On Monday, November 19, 2001, at 05:03 PM, David Honig wrote: > > Yes, but what this thread has ignored is that gold (and other > densely precious things) were valued *in and of themselves* and so > using them as money was not symbolic. You traded your goat > for a goat's worth of gold; if trust evaporated overnight > the gold is still worth something.
Not really. It was still a matter of belief that that gold coin, or gold nugget, would be worth something. "In and of itself" is a very vague and intangible concept. --Tim May "As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself." -- David Friedman
