Economists would argue that the [elementary] concept of “opportunity cost” (ie what your time is worth) would refute your notion of cost.
On top of that, where did the man get the bear skin from? Did he find it? Did he hunt and kill a bear? If so, there is the cost of the food and supplies he used on the hunt, the cost of the weapons he used to kill it, the cost of the knife he used to skin it, and any equipment he used to cure it.
Sorry mate, but the cost is never “zero.”
God these people are insufferable.
How the normies don’t cringe out of their skin is beyond me. Fucking faggots.
Again, you’re ignoring elementary economic concepts.
Money is merely a physical manifestation of the abstract concept of “value.” (Gold, for instance, was this manifestation before the advent of legal tender.)
Your premise ignores the abstract concept of value, and places undue emphasis on a specific object—money.
Meanwhile, back when your hypothetical would have taken place, the concept of money didn’t even exist. True “value” would have instead been placed on warm clothes, reliable tools, and food. It would have been a barter system, where nothing resembling the concept of “money” would have existed.