[OPE-L:4619] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 05:47:29 EST

On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> When you're talking about the transformation, however, a
> constant "value of money" in the above sense is insufficient to
> ensure that the aggregate price of commodities remains constant.
> You need money to be invariant in a stronger sense: namely, that
> it's immune to the transformation.  This can't just be "assumed"
> without cost: it would require that the money commodity is
> produced under conditions of average organic composition (or
> something of the sort), thus confining any results obtained to a
> special case.
> Allin Cottrell.

Is this still true if you are using paper dollars as your unit
of account.
There is no reason to suppose that these will be altered by
Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST