From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Mar 25 2007 - 22:49:12 EDT
I think that aggregate labour time is the equivalent value of the sum of money that is value added. The relative value of a unit of money (the value of money, for short) is therefore equal to aggregate labour divided by nominal money value added. Hours per dollar. Money acts as the equivalent for all produced commodities. The relative value of any produced commodity is therefore equal to the equivalent value of the money it sells for. Unless the equivalent value of money is necessarily equal to its relative value as expressed by labour time, the whole train of thought is pointless since we have no way of measuring the equivalent value of money. The produced commodity has a relative value expressed by the equivalent value of the money it sells for. Either it has an equivalent value equal to this relative value or it has no equivalent value. I favour the latter because I do not see how the value of the produced commodity can be the equivalent of anything, certainly not of the money it sells for. Labour time is therefore purely equivalent value. Produced commodities have only relative value. But money has both. > ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT