From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 18:35:20 EST
Rakesh, I see my tongue in cheek remark on gold as acceptable petty currency for me has excited a little discussion as was intended. ( I am serious about my investment in gold inlarger quantities however). It is of course TRUE that gold has slipped into the background as a means of circulation and an immediate standard of price, for a mass of practical reasons for some time. Its relationship to international payments has also been held 'in abeyance' - although gold bullion a plenty is moved daily from location to location in bank vaults as payments are made between very large clients. However I cannot see how Fred's notion that 'credit money' can possibly substitute for a money commodity can be true. Gold is the most stable store of value, that then acts as a measure of the value of all other commodities. If we continue to hold to the 'labour theory of value', what other means do we have to express the abstract, social quality of labour expended privately but for social use? It remains the mediating category that allows us to understand the role of money without accepting the purely 'functional' , 'technical' or 'practical' explanation for money as a higher stage in exchange from barter. Fred's algebra seems to me to miss the point that the exchange rate is not simply an idea, it must have more than a metaphysical basis, or the orders of the central banker.. I have referred previously to the role of the productiveness of industry in the states with dominant currencies, this has not be taken up by anyone, yet that very productiveness which strengthens the reputation of the paper currency can only be universally compared through the use of the labour that enters the money commodity - gold. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money commodity? > Claus wrote: > > >The US has been able > >to impose a paper dollar standard and the abandonment of gold for > >international payments. For international purposes the national standards > >of prices are not defined in terms of gold, but in terms of a basket of > >national currencies, and the dollar has been converted into the privileged > >means of international payments and of international reserves. This has > >been crucial for the US, since if gold went on being accepted as a means > >of international payments, the gold reserves of the US would run out. On > >the other hand, I think one cannot interpret this as an arbitrary > >imposition of the US without economic grounds. The economic ground is > >that, although a country cannot convert their dollars into gold, it is > >able to convert it in almost every kind of asset - financial or physical - > >in the USA and in other countries. I think if the US were unable to secure > >its economic superiority (industrial and financial and military), it would > >be unable to secure the position of the dollar as the world paper > >standard... To say that gold is still world money does not mean that the paper > >dollar has not usurped its role in important functions, for instance as > >means of circulation, means of payment and means of hoarding. > > I think you prove my point here. I fail to see any monetary function > that the dollar is not vastly more important than gold in fufilling. > As an international reserve, the dollar seems clearly more important > than gold and more functional in the wake of currency attack given > its greater liquidity. > > > Perhaps the dollar price of gold rises and gold production is > stimulated if the Fed overissues "credit money" in relation to the > greater value that needs to be realized (and perhaps this is what > Greenspan did between 2001-4 for the base political reason of > ensuring back slapping Bush's re-election, but as I have said before, > now he is now being forced to play catch up despite no general > inflationary upsurge)? > > But the function that gold is playing here is not monetary but merely > indexical. > And to be sure, with the emergence of the euro, Greenspan will have > to be more attentive to the signals of price sensitive commodities. > There is no imperial power without limits. But limits do not do away > with US plundering (nor for the way in which that plundering has--to > use Althusser's language--overdetermined and deformed the pure > dialectic of capital and labor within the US). > > Analysis should focus on the conditions under which the dollar, as > inconvertible fiat money, can serve (or continue to serve) as measure > and store of value and means of international payment. Insisting that > nothing has changed, that underneath all the monetary turbulence > money is still the gold commodity militates against analysis of the > ways in which capitalism has changed under the weight of two world > wars and hegemonic displacement via catastrophic violence. > > With all talk of the displacement of imperialism by Empire and the > dissolution of the nation state, it risks apologetics not to > recognize that the US state has imposed the dollar as money. > > Of course you don't want to do that. But I just don't see how your > and Paul B's analysis does not have that consequence. > > Yours, Rakesh > > > > > At 9:29 PM -0200 11/29/04, cmgermer@UFPR.BR wrote: > >Rakesh wrote: > > > >> At 11:20 AM -0200 11/23/04, cmgermer@UFPR.BR wrote: > >>>The fact that gold still performs fundamental functions of > >>>money is clear before our eyes. Why should we deny it? ... (T)hus, if one > >>>looks at the *monetary sphere* of today with Marxian eyes, one sees gold > >>>very distinctly in fundamental monetary functions. > >> > >> OK, Claus, gold was traditionally used by central banks as a 'war > >> chest' to provide security in the vent of a crisis. > > > >Claus: > >I would express this in a different way: in capitalism gold performs the > >function of hoarding, representing the sum of different reserves which > >each capital has to hold both as a condition as an effect of its regular > >functionning. With the development of the banking system led by a central > >bank, those reserves were converted into functionning capital through > >credit and into a small single national reserve held by the central bank. > >At this point the main functions of money (=gold) are three (since it no > >longer functions as means of circulation): means of payment for the > >payment of the balances of both domestic and international compensation; > >and an additional fraction as a war chest in your terms. Thus, the latter > >function is not an imposition of the process of reproduction of global > >capital. > > > > > >Rakesh: > >> However, it was > >> of little use during the collapse of the Asian Tiger economies. Being > >> less liquid than forex reserves, it can't be readily used to defend a > > > national currency from speculative attacks. It was growingly > >> considered more of a "commodity" than an "asset". Of course this may > >> or is changing with a flight out of all major currencies to gold, > >> and convertibility may be forced on central banks. But this is not > >> yet clear before our eyes. So I don't understand what proves to you > >> (and Paul B) that gold is still performing in Nov 2004 the > >> fundamental functions of money. > > > >Claus: > >I think one has to examine the framework of the international monetary > >system after the monetary crisis of the 60s and 70s. > > > >What I think can be proved is that gold is still performing the functions > >of money as an international monetary reserve, as private means of > >hoarding, and also as part of the domestic monetary reserve of the central > >banks. In addition to that, it must be performing the fundamental function > >of measure of value if the theory that only a commodity is able to perform > >the function of the distribution of social labor. > > > >Rakesh: > >> > >> Hasn't the world been on a dollar rather than gold standard? And the > >> US the beneficiary of exorbitant privileges? If we say that gold is > >> still world money, then we are discouraged from understanding what > >> has allowed to dollar to usurp that role to this day. And whether > >> that usurpation is unravelling before our eyes. > >> > > > >Claus: > >I'm not sure one can say that the world has been on a dollar RATHER THAN a > >gold standard. It's a "PAPER DOLLAR standard". The dollar is a standard of > >prices officially defined in terms of gold (1 dollar = 1/42,2222 of an > >ounce of gold). Since the US have been able to issue paper dollar in > >excess of the needs of circulation, and force its acceptance by almost all > >the nations, gold went out of the circulation and the paper dollar > >depreciated. Of course the US is the beneficiary of exorbitant privileges > >not only domestically (in this case the US government) but in the world, > >in a way similar to what used to be true at the domestic level in older > >times. However, if > >it is true that the role of the equivalent of value as the instrument of > >the distribution of social labor can only be performed by a money > >commodity, then the interference into that function by way of the US's > >attempt to completely displace gold from those functions must be seen as > >the cause of a specific tipe of crisis in the world system. Money is for > >capital, according to Marx, a contradictory thing, because on the one hand > >capitalists don't want to immobilize their capital value into money, but > >on the other side they have to do it as an imposition of both the process > >of reproduction of capital and in part of the uncertainty about the > >future. > > > >Comradely, > >Claus. > > > > > >> Rakesh > >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EST