This latter conception gives rise to the belief among socialists and statists that all-wise, caring bureaucrats can plan and benevolently guide economies to prosperity, and among social conservatives that censors and vice squads can create civil societies. A classic example of this type of order is money. In primitive societies, individuals might need to travel long distances to trade with one another. But it is difficult and costly to tote four cows, seven bales of hay, and a slab of copper over a mountain, all to be exchanged for a dozen sheep, six large jars of barley, and a handful of gold nuggets. Many merchants hit on the strategy of trading their goods simply for those small yellow pieces of metal rather than sheep, which tend to wander off, and the rest of it.
Gold is easy to transport, difficult to counterfeit, durable, rust-resistant, and easily divisible.
Traders can take the metal home to exchange for what they really need. Thus as individuals sought to exchange goods more efficiently, the institution of money emerged and became an economic institution as an unintended consequence. No one invented it. A third Hayekian insight, best seen on the market, concerns the limits of individual knowledge. It is impossible for any individual to know what mix of goods and services will best satisfy consumer needs, what prices goods, services and labor should fetch, and which individuals are most efficient at performing particular jobs.