[ show plain text ]
A short response to sections of Akira's [OPE-L:1984]:
> I think that first of all, money should be measure of value. What is money
> is a kind of mirror to reflect the value of other commodity by itself. I
> tell currency from money in this standard. In other words, currency doesn't
> have a necessary and sufficient condition as measure of value.
To function as measure, money does not have to be commodity. Indeed, there
are many examples of measures where the unit of measure is not composed of
the same substance as what is being measured.
> Logically Marx proved it, I think. In this point my opinion is the same as
> Dr. Germer's.
(btw, Claus has been having problems receiving e-mail for quite some time
and this likely explains why he hasn't added anything to this thread in
recent weeks. I fully expect, though, that when he is back on-line that
we will hear more from him on this topic -- and I look forward to that.)
> The problem is how the value flactuation of the commdity money make the
> price change(how commodity money work as measure of value). I cannot help
> approve that this subject dosen't still investigated at all. We are faced
> with the difficult problem about the theory of international value and so on
> for its sake. Especially, *the relative value of money *(C1-Ch. "NATIONAL
> DIFFERENCES OF WAGES") should be the key-word.
Yes! By all means, let's discuss international value and national
differences on wages. What do you see as the relevance of V1, Ch. 22 on
this subject?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:05 EST