[OPE-L:4619] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 05:47:29 EST


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