From: dashyaf@easynet.co.uk
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 13:27:19 EDT
I have been away and have only just seen this contribution. I believe my approach in that article is the correct one to take and having looked at the discussion so far, I have nothing really to add. I do think that Sweezy's introduction of von Bortkiewicz to an Anglo-US readership caused unnecessary confusion and problems. David Yaffe At 11:22 16/08/02 -0700, you wrote: >David Y may not want to return to this question as he seems to have been >at work on an analysis of contemporary capitalism. > >http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/marxism/articles/ > > >Value & Price in Marx's Capital From Revolutionary Communist No. 1 (Second >Edition) May 1976. by David Yaffe > > >It is incorrect to treat gold, as the money commodity, exactly in the same >way as luxury products, although they share important features in common. >However, gold, as the money commodity, does not have a price of >production, while luxury products do. Further, competition does not affect >the gold industry in the same way as for luxury products - it has a >certain independence. Gold producers, in > producing the money commodity, have a social monopoly. It is the only > commodity which cannot be over-produced. The moment it is produced it is > already in exchangeable form. If we regard, with Marx, luxury products as > being a sub-section of Department II (11b), gold, as the money commodity, > would require a separate department of its own.[60] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 17:17:38 EDT