On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, you wrote: > When you're talking about the transformation, however, a > constant "value of money" in the above sense is insufficient to > ensure that the aggregate price of commodities remains constant. > You need money to be invariant in a stronger sense: namely, that > it's immune to the transformation. This can't just be "assumed" > without cost: it would require that the money commodity is > produced under conditions of average organic composition (or > something of the sort), thus confining any results obtained to a > special case. > > Allin Cottrell. Is this still true if you are using paper dollars as your unit of account. There is no reason to suppose that these will be altered by transformation. -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST