[OPE-L:1350] Re: Re: still more on advertising and productive labour

From: zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
Date: Sun Sep 26 1999 - 17:43:52 EDT

On 09/26/99 at 08:31 PM, "Michael J Williams"
<michael@williamsmj.screaming.net> said:

>> I don't get it. You argue that money isn't a commodity but credit can be?
>> Yet, isn't credit part of the money supply?

>I'll have to think about this. First stab:- In my scheme of things, the
>argument that Money is not a commodity (thoguh the money-object typically
>will be - even if a highly complex one) is derived from the claim that
>Money (as, if you like, a hierarchical set of social functions) cannot be
>reproduced under capitalist direct production relations. A credit line
>can be and is - but note that there is no relation between the $ value of
>the loan and the abstract labour needed to set up the credit line (if you
>like, the 'credit-object').

Michael, I don't want to push too much but can I remind you to think about
my question [OPE #1308], in connection with thinking about the above:

"In our case, Moneybags earns interest with coupons received and the
borrower pays. Abstracting from intermediation only means to get to this
relationship. Does this relationship, for you [Michael], represent a
commodity transaction?"

Thanks, Paul

Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:10 EST