Dear Mike William,
I have to apologize that I am late in responding to your post but I had
something urgent thesedays.
You said,
---------
>Are you claiming that the socially
>necessary abstract labour time required to (re)produce 15 x $1000 notes is
>equal to that required to produce the Ford Sierra car that $15K can buy? I
>think not. (A similar question could be asked about the complex of
>commodities need to reproduce an e-money system.)
Chai-on:
--------
Yes, I am with the transformation problem apart. Otherwise, how can we
claim the equilevant exchange? Do you get the $15K note with less labor
than the Sierra costs? Then you should be lucky as you have won an
advantage over the Sierra producer. For the CB, money costs little. Yet the
notes in the hands of the CB are not yet called money. Some non-producers
closely linked with the CB can get money with little labor but other
ordinary people cannot get it in that way.
Mike :
------
>Quite. And a Value not locked in contradictory unity with a Use-Value, is
>not a Commodity.
>
Chai-on:
--------
Your definition of commodity seems to revolve around the existence of
use-value. IMO, however, value is more crucial than the use-value to the
definition of commodity.
Comradely greetings
Chai-on
Chai-on Lee
Associate Professor of Economics
Dept. of Economics,
Chonnam National University,
Kwang-Ju, 500-757,
S Korea
Tel: +82-62-520 7329
Fax: +82-62-529 0446
E-m: conlee@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr