From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:07:23 EST
Fred, now you are not really answering me.. did you follow my points? Do you not see the gap left open for apologists of any issuing state/s power, if fiduciary issue is supposed to be what it isn't, the actual universal equivalent it is representing? How can bank credit, forthcoming in manifold ways in many countries under different banking regimes play this role? It seem to me you are suggesting that the chain of 'accidental' equivalences is sufficient to promote an agreement between parties to different sections of such a long chain of equivalences, over the quantity of paper ( weight?) acceptable at a universal level. This seems to me entirely idealistic, counter to any real notion of materialism. my answer is simple enough,..... by reference to gold. Inevitably other commodirties will always, and always have been referred to, as capital constantly searches for a commodity to best meet its needs for a universal equivalent, eg platinum, silver, oil, corn etc.or desperately, a 'Baker's dozen'. but it seems clear to me that the blunt impossibility of de-monetising gold, despite numerous 'attempts', its constant resurgence in every discussion, shows that beneath the surface (no pun intended) the exchange of gold for paper claims on other commodities, regulates the exchange process. This is a real issue. Thus November 13-14 Sat-Sun, International Herald Tribune ( and not todays furore over Greenspans new anxiety, or the Stiglitz - Peterson exchange at Wharton recently ) Cohen writtes of the real cost of gold..(p2)..'A metric ton of ore yields 10.57 grams of gold'...No trace of its glow lurks in the weary face of Fanie Sithole,47....Once a year, Sithole goes home to his wife and 5 children in Maputo. .... Work proceeds at an intense pace..." Why this labour intensive process.?.. the need for this commodity? For me Marx was quite right. What I don't understand is what the problem is understanding him. Cheers Paul. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money commodity? > Paul, how do you think the MELT (the monetary expression of labor-time > or the money-value produced per hour) is determined today? > > Comradely, > Fred >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 00:00:02 EST