In response to Steve Keen [676],
Thank you for your comment.
1. You say that money can be a mere symbol. Can you then distinguish
the money and a mere token? Token is a mere symbol. Money is not a
mere symbol. Coin is of course a value-symbol like a token. The
symbol is matched with a certain real commodity, the real money. Even
for the case of today's paper money, the same can apply. Recently I
wrote this point in a working paper, which I can send you if you are
interested.
2. Your citation seems misdirected.
"What the borrower of money buys is likewise its use-value as
capital; but what does he pay for? Surely not its price, or value, as
in the case of ordinary commodities."
If not its price, then what? In the case of ordinary commodities, its
value is independent from its use-value. But, in this case, it is directly
related to its use-value. Its use-value is the surplus-value creating
power of money as capital. They pay the surplus-value it creates for the
use-value. Maybe a part of it or the whole of it. It is called an interest
payment. The exchange value of a house must be different from the rent
of it. In like manner, the exchange-value of money should not be
confused with the interest (the service charge) of the money. It must be
wrong to call the rent of a house the exchange value of the house. You
called the interest of a moneyed capital the exchange value of money.
Cheers, Thanks again.
Chai-on Lee