From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 09:03:39 EDT
--- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > Hi Fred, Ajit and others > > > Consider a C-M-C simple commodity economy with > non-commodity money, > i.e. non-produced tokens. Assume all commodities are > basic and do not > require other commodities as inputs. ______________ This is where your story ends, Ian! Once a commodity "do(es) not require other commodities as inputs" you are in a world of silver pickers on a beach. The value theory does not get into any kind of problems without conastant capital--no transformation problem, nothing. The real bitch is the constant capital, which you are assuming away. And without constant capital, you cannot think of capitalism. By the way, a basic commodity means that it is directly or indirectly an input in the production of all commodities. So you must mean non-basic in your above quote. Below you mention Ulrich Krause. I think Krause is the only serious book I have come across on this kind of issue. As a matter of fact, in my entry on ‘Labour Theory of Value’, Readers Guide to Social Sciences, (ed.) Jonathan Michie, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, 2001. Also reprinted in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (2002) by the same publisher, I have selected Krause among the ten important publications I have discussed there on the issue. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT