re 4633 >On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >> Well, let's assume that each monetary unit simply represents >> .5 labor hours. > >That's precisely what you "simply" cannot do, if there's a >transformation going on and money is a commodity. As Paul >suggests, maybe you can do it with fiat money. > >Allin Cottrell But if money is a commodity, its value is variable; yet it remains invariable even though technical change is going on. So, having made this heroically fictitious assumption earlier, why can't Marx continue to assume that the money commodity invariably commands, say, .5 hours of labor in the transformation as well? Perhaps this defacto makes Marx's money a theoretical fiat money. At any rate, what do you think Marx's assumptions regarding money are in vol 1 and vol 3 and in his own transformation tables? Thanks for the clarifications to you and Paul C whose message I have think over. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST