[ show plain text ]
I have a question on this. If the gold industry is subject to profit rate
equalisation (as I agree that we must assume), how will this happen without
resorting to the quantity theory of money? Profit rate equalisation relies
on, say, increased supply driving own price down and bringing the rate of
profit down to the average. For gold, that means increased quantity driving
other prices up (own price being one). That's the quantity theory.
Am I right in thinking that Duncan would probably rely on speculation to
resolve this one?
Cheers
Costas
At 11:29 PM 1/7/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I don't agree with Mandel on this one.
>
>There's no reason to suppose that the flow of capital in and out of gold
>production won't tendentially lead to the equalization of the profit rate
>in gold production to the average rate of profit, just as in any other
>sector. I also don't see why this would contradict Marx's theory of money
>and price.
>
>What is different about gold in a system where gold is the money commodity
>is that it doesn't have to be realized by exchanging on the market against
>the money commodity, since it is already money.
>
>Duncan
>
>>You write:
>>>
>>>What you have described there is not the value of a commodity but what marx
>>>represents as its price, its exchange value in terms of the universal
>>>equivalent gold.
>>
>>So does gold itself have a price of production, or only a value ? What is
>>your opinion ? For convenience, I will quote Prof. Mandel's argument (which
>>is different from Prof. Itoh's):
>>
>>"...if commodity-producting labour needs a general equivalent, a 'thing' in
>>which the social character of its labour is immediately recognised, money
>>can play that role only because it is itself a commodity. Money is itself
>>the product of abstract human labour, of a fragment of the total labour
>>potential at the disposal of a given society. Otherwise, money and all
>>commodities would in turn remain incommensurable. The money-commodity gold
>>is therefore the one commodity hich enters the circulation process with its
>>value and not with a price. When Marx states that all commodities can enter
>>the circulation process only price-determined (preisbestimmt), this implies
>>that their price is the expression of their value in the value of the
>>money-commodity. Any other conclusion would be based upon circular
>>reasoning. One cannot presuppose the existence of a price determinaton of
>>commodities without explaining what determines their prices. One cannot
>>suppose that these prices depend upon the money-commodity without
>>determining what determines the value of gold. One cannot determine the
>>value of gold without determining the nature of all value, or upon the
>>tacit assumption of incommensurability of commodities on the one hand -
>>prices not determined by value - and of gold on the other hand. Either gold
>>has a value, or it has a 'price' determined by 'something' else than value,
>>different and apart from the price of all other commodities. Hence it would
>>be incommensurable with all other commodities. Only because gold has a
>>value can all other commodities have prices. But only because the prices of
>>all other commodities are based upon value, can the value of gold determine
>>the prices of commodities" (E. Mandel, Gold, money and the transformation
>>problem, p. 143-144).
>>
>>In solidarity
>>
>>Jurriaan Bendien
>
>Duncan K. Foley
>Department of Economics
>Graduate Faculty
>New School University
>65 Fifth Avenue
>New York, NY 10003
>(212)-229-5906
>messages: (212)-229-5717
>fax: (212)-229-5724
>e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
>alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
>webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST