From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 09:04:30 EDT
Reuten <g.a.t.m.reuten@UVA.NL> said:
> 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?
>
The reference was to Marx, especially to the opening pages of Cap. I ch. 3.
Marx talks there of the _relative_ value of money being given by the expanded
relative expression of value:
The general form of relative value has resumed its original shape of simple or
isolated relative value. On the other hand, the expanded expression of
relative value, the endless series of equations, has now become the form
peculiar to the relative value of the money-commodity. The series itself, too,
is now given, and has social recognition in the prices of actual commodities.
We have only to read the quotations of a price-list backwards, to find the
magnitude of the value of money expressed in all sorts of commodities.
I have always been struck by the passage. However, Marx cannot follow it up
because of the heterogeneity of "all sorts of commodities". To get over this
problem it is necessary to drop use-value, concrete labour and private labour
as the peculiarities of the equivalent.
As to abstract/concrete level -- if inflation simply is change in the value of
money, that is what it is. Of course, elaboration is required to deal with
empirical complexities. This is focused on the definition and measurement of
nominal value added. NVA is a just difficult to measure as profit.
> 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?
>
It is the right way up. If the nominal unit of money is the dollar, the value
of money is hours per dollar, dimensionally.
Phil Dunn
>
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