From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 07:41:26 EDT
I'd love to chip in here but, although I am back lurking, I am still
time starved - and Geert hasn't yet said anything that I would wish to
dispute ...
michael w
-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of OPE-L
Administrator
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 12:13 PM
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: (OPE-L) Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of labour'
within a value-form perspective
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reuten" <g.a.t.m.reuten@uva.nl>
To: "'OPE-L'" <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: (OPE-L) Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of
labour' within a value-form perspective
In the way Paul C. phrased it, "money that validates value", you are
bound to get into the circel he indicates. I would say "money validates
production" (or some or none of course). Whatever theoretical
considerations you have, anyway it is the case that for capital
(capitalists, entrepreneurs, firms) in actual practice money is the
measure of value. (It is that always microeconomically. Theoretically,
when you are engaged in macroeconomic theory other considerations may
come in. Appart from those I am generally reluctant to use the phrase
"value of money" as it has a tautologous flavour.)
The references that Jerry provides are still adequate as far as my
position till now is concerned. (The book is sold out. But I can send a
free bound xeroxed copy to list memebers, just send me your physical
adress -- I promised this time ago to one list member but lost the
adress -- shame!) In fact I am in the process of writing a paper on
these issues in relation to Marx's views in "Capital" which I can send
around in two month time. (Paul writes "... money can not be the measure
of value ..". For Marx of course it could -- but that is no argument.)
Comradely,
Geert Reuten
(PS: Sorry about my name in the e-mail adress: my university server
"organised" this for al the personel.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU]On Behalf Of gerald_a_levy
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 13:38
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: (OPE-L) Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of
> labour' within a value-form perspective
>
>
> Paul C wrote on Wednesday, April 30:
>
> > What I am asking the value form people is this:
> > if it is sale for money that validates value what validates money
> > We know that the value of money changes over time but if we conceed
> > this, then money can not be the measure of value, value must have a
> > prior existence for us to be able to say that the
> value of money has fallen.
> > If that is the case, how can we assign money priority in validating
> and measuring value?
>
> List members Geert and Mike W, within the context of a systematic
> dialectical reconstruction in thought of capitalism, conceptualized
> inflation "as an increase in the money expression of labour, m" which
> "requires in addition an upward move in prices relative to
> labour-productivity change" (_Value-Form and the State: The Tendencies
> of Accumulation and the Determination of Economic Policy in Capitalist
> Society_, p. 148; also see rest of Ch. 5, Section 3). On a more
> basic level -- which is what you are most concerned about -- their
> answer is given in Chapter Two, Section 2 ("The Credit System:
> Reproduction of Money and Money Capital"; Ibid, pp. 81-89 ),
> especially sub-sections 9 ("The social expression of private
> pre-validation"; Ibid, pp. 84-86) and 10 ("The Central Bank and
> pseudo-social validation: the fully developed credit system"; Ibid,
> pp. 86-89). A more formal, mathematical treatment is given on p. 96
> in the sub-section on "The money expression of labour and abstract
> labour."
>
> Maybe Geert and/or Mike W would like to offer a more succinct or
> developed answer to your questions? In any event, they would no
> doubt be the first to add that they offer _a_ value-form answer to
> the questions you asked rather than _the_ value-form answer. So, I
> have no idea of how others like Chris, Tony, and Nicky (or someone
> sympathetic to some value-form conceptualizations like Phil) view this
> issue.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 04 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT