Re: money doesn't measure

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 03:39:22 EDT

>Allin, it is true that you know this, but it is clear
>to me that many people on this list don't. My simple
>point is that the idea that the labor-time in money
>commodity could be separated out and given a special
>status to solve the problem of measuring the socially
>necessary abstract labor does not even get off the
>block. Cheers, ajit sinha

  Is gold the kind of commodity the production of which will tend to
make the average rate of profit in the system as a whole (as
Bortkiewicz also assumed)? Did Ricardo himself think so? That is a
simple textual question that you should be able to answer.  Why was
Ricardo in fact skeptical that gold is such a commodity (I think
Marshall expressed the same skepticism later for the same reason
later)? Should I again give you the page numbers where he expresses
his skepticism? If the skepticism proves grounded, this would be one
reason why the gold commodity has some kind of special status.

As for the special aspect of gold to which you speak above, gold is
in fact a special status commodity by methodological fiat in Marx's
system. It is assumed to have a given and fixed value throughout the
three volumes of Capital. Grossmann argued that only someone who was
scientifically untutored would consider this to be arbitrary and
undermining of the scientific status of Capital. That is, you will
not get off the block unless you make that assumption.

And around we go.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT