[OPE-L:4624] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 18:52:22 EST

On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Paul Cockshott 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)...

> 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're right, in that fiat money is not a produced commodity and
doesn't participate in any equalization of the rate of profit,
unlike Marx's commodity money.

Allin Cottrell.

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