[ show plain text ]
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Akira MATSUMOTO wrote:
> The function of measure of value can be substitute of other
> materials such as paper in the unit of account. But the
> measure of value itself can not be taken of because the
> mirror of value must be the commodity. How does the
> Non-valuabels measure the value of the commodity? How is the
> non-valuables determined its value itself ?
You're supposing (as Marx did) that setting the exchange value
of a commodity must, in some ultimate sense, depend on a
comparison of (a) the value of the commodity with (b) the value
of the monetary unit itself (which becomes an impossibility if
money has no inherent value). But in my opinion this is quite
wrong. It is not the only way in which relative prices can come
to reflect relative labour-contents.
Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:05 EST