Re: Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of labour' within a value-form perspective

From: Michael Eldred (artefact@T-ONLINE.DE)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 16:15:35 EDT

Cologne 01-May-2003

gerald_a_levy schrieb Thu, 1 May 2003 07:37:43 -0400:

> Paul C wrote on Wednesday, April 30:
> > What I am asking the value form people is this:
> >  if it is sale for money that validates value what validates money
> > We know that the value of money changes over time but if we
> > conceed this,  then money can not be the measure of value,
> > value must have a prior existence for us to be able to say that
> > the value of money has fallen.
> > If that is the case, how can we assign money priority in validating
> > and measuring value?
> List members Geert and Mike W, within the context of a systematic
> dialectical reconstruction in thought of capitalism, conceptualized
> inflation "as an increase in the money expression of labour, m"
> which "requires in addition an upward move in prices relative to
> labour-productivity change" (_Value-Form and the State: The
> Tendencies of Accumulation and the Determination of Economic
> Policy in Capitalist Society_, p. 148;  also see rest of Ch. 5,
> Section 3).  On a more basic level -- which is what you are most
> concerned about --  their answer is given in Chapter Two, Section
> 2 ("The Credit System: Reproduction of Money and Money
> Capital"; Ibid, pp. 81-89 ),  especially sub-sections 9 ("The social
> expression of private pre-validation"; Ibid, pp. 84-86) and 10 ("The
> Central Bank and pseudo-social validation: the fully developed credit
> system"; Ibid, pp. 86-89).  A more formal, mathematical treatment is
> given on p. 96 in the sub-section on "The money expression of labour
> and abstract labour."
> Maybe Geert and/or Mike W would like to offer a more succinct  or
> developed answer to your questions?   In any event, they would no
> doubt be the first to add that they offer _a_  value-form answer to the
> questions you asked rather than _the_ value-form answer.  So, I have
> no idea of how others like Chris,  Tony, and Nicky (or  someone
> sympathetic to some value-form conceptualizations like Phil) view this
> issue.


If value is relational, that is, social-relational, then the magnitude of
value is also relational, i.e. relative, and not absolute. Money itself is
a social convention (a usage performing a sociating function) for mediating
the social exchange of commodities. Such a convention may be a commodity
usually accepted as the sole mediator of commodity exchange, or legal
tender tokens posited by state fiat of law.

The quantitative value of money depends inter alia on the quantitative
relation between the amount of money in circulation and the amount of
commodities purchasable, i.e. the quantitative value of money is itself
relative. It will fall if the money volume increases relative to the volume
of commodities to be had for it. Such money volume depends also on credit
relations, which in turn can be state-controlled through the central bank
(again by fiat).

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT