[OPE-L:4637] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2000 - 14:14:32 EST

re 4633

>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>>  Well, let's assume that each monetary unit simply represents
>>  .5 labor hours.
>That's precisely what you "simply" cannot do, if there's a
>transformation going on and money is a commodity.  As Paul
>suggests, maybe you can do it with fiat money.
>Allin Cottrell

But if money is a commodity, its value is variable; yet it remains 
invariable even though technical change is going on. So, having made 
this heroically fictitious assumption earlier,  why can't Marx 
continue to assume that the money commodity invariably commands, say, 
.5 hours of labor in the transformation as well? Perhaps this defacto 
makes Marx's money a theoretical fiat money. At any rate, what do you 
think Marx's assumptions regarding money are in vol 1 and vol 3 and 
in his own transformation tables? Thanks for the clarifications to 
you and Paul C whose message I have think over.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST