Paul C wrote in 5048: > > * discussion of money and prices in a one-commodity > > world is incomprehensible talk <snip, JL> > I, for one, can see no meaning for a concept of price in > a one commodity world. I find it incomprehensible. I agree and note that the only way in this context to attach prices to the product (I would argue the "one commodity" can't be a commodity, in Marx's sense of the term, at all) is by way of some very brave and absurd -- and illegitimate -- hypothetical situations (see below). Hypothetical 1 (Wine): Consider a "one commodity" world in which wine is the only "commodity" (a fantasy perhaps for some wine-lovers). If all wine was "Beaujolais-Villages" some vintages might exchange at different rates. For example: the "price" of 2 bottles produced in 2000 might be the same as the price of 1 bottle produced in 1995. The increase in the exchange-value of wine caused by aging was discussed by Marx (in Volume 2, I think). The important point to remember is that they are *not* the same commodity any more and we no longer have a one-commodity world. Hypothetical 2 (Fish): Suppose a particular type of fish, let's say herring, is the only "commodity" produced. The exchange rate for 1-week-old fish might be different than the exchange rate for 1-day-old fish. This is because the use-value of the fish can deteriorate with the passage of time. Indeed, rotten fish might have "negative exchange value"! But, again, we're no longer talking about a "one commodity" world -- we're talking about different products: even if both are fish they are no longer the same (homogeneous) product. Similarly, if we have herring and smoked herring (the mere thought of kipper at this hour makes me hungry!), we are no longer talking about a one-commodity situation. Hypothetical 3 (Rice): There are thousands of varieties of rice and it is possible to conceive of a situation in which the exchange rates for different types of rice varies. In this case, once again, we're no longer talking about a one commodity illustration since the variety of rice has caused market segmentation. But why use one-sector models/illustrations at all? Weren't they discredited decades ago? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST