[OPE-L:4065] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: m in Marx's theory

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Thu Oct 12 2000 - 14:23:59 EDT

re 4059
Your first mistake was parsing and responding to my comments, instead 
of Grossman's. I am not so interested in what you think of my ideas 
at this point!

>As I understand the Grossman passage quoted below (which I found
>interesting), it does NOT say that the value of gold is UNOBSERVABLE.  It
>only says that Marx assumed the value of gold REMAINS CONSTANT (since a
>change in the value of gold does not affect any of the main conclusions of
>the theory, as I have argued in recent posts).  I agree with this
>completely.  Even though m is unobservable, Marx took m as given AND
>assumed it to remain constant.  Again, there is no contradiction here.

And I agree completely with this.

>P.S.  Rakesh, did Grossman discuss the determination of the value of gold
>with prices of production?

Good question. But I think this is in the context of the gold sector 
as a source of additional purchasing power given the problem an 
unsaleable surplus arising in dept II, not the transformation problem 
per se.  Let me look into his piece on gold production and Luxemburg 
from the early 30s.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST