From: Akira MATSUMOTO (amatsu@LL.EHIME-U.AC.JP)
Date: Wed Dec 01 2004 - 19:01:17 EST
Dear member I rewrote a paper for the Korean Journal of Political Economy, vol.2, 2004 on monetization on gold title: Monetization of Gold and the de facto Standard of Price: Estimating the Depreciation Rate of the Dollar Please see it. At 4:39 PM -0200 04.12.1, cmgermer@UFPR.BR wrote: >In a reply to Paul B, Jerry wrote: > >Some time ago (on November 19) you wrote: > >>>>> >As a matter of fact Fred, I know of no one who would not be prepared to >accept a certain quantity of gold for any of their property , ( should >they wish to sell it, even if they later had to exchange it for paper for >other reasons), that is to say that this commodity remains the money >commodity, par excellence.. <<< > >Jerry: >Interesting, since I know of no one (save, possibly, Claus, Akira, or >yourself) who would be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold in >exchange for their property. I know that if I wanted to sell property >like a house (which I don't own) or a boat (which I do) I wouldn't accept >gold as payment. To begin with, I would have no confidence that it was >real or that it was 'pure'. I certainly wouldn't want to pay the extra >expense and put up with a delay to hire an appraiser. Also, I would feel >very uncomfortable accepting gold from a security perspective (I'd much >rather receive a bank check). And then I'd have the hassle and delay of >selling the gold. And -- given the frequent fluctuations in the price of >gold (yes, gold _does_ have a price) -- I would feel uncomfortable >holding on to the gold since I am not interested in gold speculation. And >-- more to the point -- I know of no one in my community who would accept >gold as payment for property of any significant worth. If someone went >to my landlord's office and proposed to pay for real estate in gold, s/he >would get laughed out of the office. > >Claus: >You might be right in claiming that gold is no longer money today, but >your arguments are unconvincing and don't support your claim. The essence >of your argument is that gold is not money because it does not circulate >as money. Well, such an argument is only acceptable in a quantity theory >framework, because according to this theory money has only one function - >that of means of circulation - and for this reason money cannot have value >of its own. In the framework of Marx's theory your argument is >unsustainable, because in this case the prevalence of the function of >means of payment and the development of an integrated banking system imply >that money does NOT need to circulate in person, without being displaced >from its role as money. >I think in normal conditions I would not accept (and I guess no one would) >an uncertified piece of gold in the example you gave. I wouldn't because >gold coins are not issued for the the usual functions of means of >circulation and of payment. This doesn't prove your point either, because >gold is issued in certified bars which perform very specific functions of >money, allowed by the nature of the global monetary system (credit system >in Marx's terms). Thus, the fact that you and I don't use gold bars in our >activities does not prove that they don't perform functions of money. > >Comradely, >Claus. -- $B!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t (B $B>>K\!!O/ (B $B0&I2Bg3XK!J83XItAm9g@/:v3X2J!!65<x (B $B@/:v>pJs2J3X9V:B!!6bM;%7%9%F%`C4Ev (B $B") (B790-8577 $BEEOC!& (BFax $B!' (B089-927-9237 $B!J%@%$%d%k!&%$%s!K (B e-mail $B!' (Bamatsu@ll.ehime-u.ac.jp $B!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t!t (B
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 00:00:00 EST