[OPE-L:4620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 06:10:20 EST

Paul Cockshott wrote:

> 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
> transformation.


You will have to have first a theory that determines the value of paper
dollar, and then show that during the transformation procedure its value
will not change. I suspect that in all likelihood it should change. But,
of course, this is not Marx's problem. Cheers, ajit sinha

> --
> Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
> 0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966
> paul@cockshott.com
> http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/
> http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html

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