On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul Cockshott 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)... > 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're right, in that fiat money is not a produced commodity and doesn't participate in any equalization of the rate of profit, unlike Marx's commodity money. Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST