From: Reuten (g.a.t.m.reuten@UVA.NL)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 17:30:40 EDT
"Clyder" wrote: " If one considers that value is labour, then the value of money is unproblematic." Although Marx is no authority for me (instead my most important dead `discussion' partner), I would think that if you say "value is labour" then you destroy ALL of his effort in Parts Three to Five of Capital I to EXPLAIN value BY labour. If you want to break that down, then that is fine with me, but then we just seem to be engaged in a different research project. "Clyder" also wrote: "How do you talk about inflation without mentioning that involves a fall in the value of money?" Over the last 50 years "inflation" has become a mystical term. Most mainstream economists take inflation to be identical to price increase (then better say that). Price inflation -- in my view -- is a complex of, inseparatedly, monetary factors and pricing factors. Most briefly price inflation is a price increase above labour productivity increase (and which requires a monetary accomodation). Price inflation was hardly at all discussed by Marx. In the way he smartly posited his value theory in Volume I of Capital, he could abstract from this. Comradely, Geert Reuten > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU]On Behalf Of > clyder@GN.APC.ORG > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 20:34 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of > labour' within a value-form perspective > > > Quoting OPE-L Administrator <ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU>: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Reuten" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > To: "'OPE-L'" <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 5:21 PM > > Subject: RE: (OPE-L) Inflation, credit, and the 'money expression of > > labour' within a value-form perspective > > > > > > In the way Paul C. phrased it, "money that validates value", you are > > bound to get into the circel he indicates. I would say > "money validates > > production" (or some or none of course). Whatever theoretical > > considerations you have, anyway it is the case that for capital > > (capitalists, > > entrepreneurs, firms) in actual practice money is the > measure of value. > > (It is that always microeconomically. Theoretically, when you are > > engaged in macroeconomic theory other considerations may > come in. Appart > > from those I am generally reluctant to use the phrase > "value of money" > > as it has a tautologous flavour.) > > > > I can understand why you might be if you take a purely relational > take on value. If one considers that value is labour, then the value > of money is unproblematic. "
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT