From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 11:02:12 EDT
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Paul Cockshot wrote: > On Sunday 25 August 2002 18:22, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > > > > 2. I argue that the crucial flaw in Gary and Gil's argument is that it > > assumes that the exchange-value of the numeraire, or the money commodity > > (e.g. gold), is determined in the same way as the prices of all other > > commodities, i.e. that the gold industry participates in the equalization > > of profit rates like all other industries. This means that there is an > > equation for the gold industry that is essentially the same as all the > > other equations, i.e. that the price of gold is equal to production costs > > plus the average profit. > > > > The gold industry can not be the key issue here. Assume state fiat > money instead if that is a problem. Paul, I made a similar point weeks ago in my initial response to Gil. But I think it is also important to clarify how, in a system of commodity money (which Marx assumed and which existed until 1975), the money commodity is different, and does not participate in the equalization of profit rates in the same way as other industries. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 17:17:38 EDT