I am not sure you are using fungibility completely correctly because the goods have a condition, are perishable, they can be bartered or traded or maybe are fungible with respect to each other but are not literal money and literally interchangeable with money.

Anyway, if you want to go down that path you can easily conclude that literally any good or activity is just money, that you live a money-dominated life and we all exist for money all the time and while useful in some contexts I don't think it's particularly apt, but I hope you enjoy it.

> literally any good or activity is just money

In the grand context of life, no (despite the vast majority of large scale events that we learn about in history being usually a result of conflict over money/power) , but in the context of business, as this thread is, yes in a for-profit business literally every good and activity is about money.

Some businesses may choose to sacrifice money for things like employee well-being or community contribution, but that's a choice they make, or more likely are forced to make.

Yes, that's exactly the point...it's meaningless to say (as you did) that the EIC wasn't motivated by money but instead motivated by goods. Even leaving aside that they sold those goods for money....the distinction is meaningless, as money is just a store of value and lubricant for the exchange of goods (and services).

It's not a meaningless distinction. The goods are consumable. The British public didn't want access to spices as an investment vehicle. Using them was a quality of life improvement.