From: Reuten (g.a.t.m.reuten@UVA.NL)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 18:26:20 EDT
Phil Dunn writes:
"Money is purchasing power and its intrinsic value is
measured by quantity of the immanent
measure, labour time, it commands."
I do not know what the meaning is of a general statement
like this. Is this meant to be an abstract statement? At
what level?
Inflation is presumably a fairly concrete phenomenon.
The statement here rings a bell of Marx early on in Capital
I. But he is very clear that he is positing this at a most
abstract and simplified level. It would make a charicature
of Marx to just cut all the mediations that would evemtually
get one to the complex of price inflation. But may be you
are not discussing Marx. If not, are you making a concrete
statement?
Phil Dunn also writes:
"The value of a nominal unit of money, as universal
relative, is equal to the the ratio of total living
labour time to total nominal value added."
Is this what you mean, or should it be the other way around?
Comradely,
Geert Reuten
The value of a nominal unit of
> money, as universal relative, is equal to the the ratio of
> total living
> labour time to total nominal value added.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU]On Behalf Of
Phil Dunn
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 17:30
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: (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
>
> I do not see how changes in the value of money over time
prevent it
> measuring the value of produced commodities. Money is
purchasing
> power and its intrinsic value is measured by quantity of
the immanent
> measure, labour time, it commands. The value of a nominal
unit of
> money, as universal relative, is equal to the the ratio of
> total living
> labour time to total nominal value added. What is
required to have a
> prior existence is only _equivalent_ value, the labour
time
> equivalents of money. The _relative_ value of produced
commodities
> is then expressed by money as universal equivalent.
>
> The difficulty is due, I think, to Marx's mapping of the
> relative/equivalent distinction onto the value/use-value
distinction.
> Equivalent value has nothing to do with use-value. The
> relative/equivalent distinction is a distinction within
the value
> concept.
>
> Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT