Paul Cockshott wrote: > 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. ________________________ You will have to have first a theory that determines the value of paper dollar, and then show that during the transformation procedure its value will not change. I suspect that in all likelihood it should change. But, of course, this is not Marx's problem. Cheers, ajit sinha > > -- > 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