Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Mar 23 2005 - 06:58:27 EST

Thanks Jerry,

Of course, to be trivial or obvious is not to be logically inconsistent.
In fact, my theme has always has an ontological aspect in that my bench
mark for gauging triviality or otherwise is the 'real world'. 

Despite appearance to the contrary we actually seem to be making as much
progress as can ever be expected in such a forum, rather than
continually talking past one another, from my point of view. Thus I have
now clarified that what becomes 'obviously' incommensurable through
introduction of new goods is a measure of generalised exchange value or,
slightly more concretely put, 'purchasing power'. Ajit has all along, it
now becomes clear to me, simply been insisting that one can compare not
generalised exchange value or purchasing power but merely the rate at
which a given good exchanges for one other good through introduction of
new goods. Of course if one chooses as numeraire a new good then one
cannot compare 'prices' with the old system.

In reality it seems to me that we are interested in generalised exchange
value or purchasing power. This is why value (the 'third thing') is

Thanks again,


-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of
Sent: 22 March 2005 22:36
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

Hi Andy (and Ajit and others):

The tennis match that you are playing with Ajit is confusing --
to me at least.   In an earlier volley, you claimed that the results
about basic goods in Ajit's and Paul C's paper were "obvious" and
"trivial".  Now it is clear that your disagreement with Ajit is
*ontological*.  Perhaps if the both of you could focus  on _either_ the
formal logical consistency of  the paper _or_ the ontological question
(re commodity, money, value,  capitalism, etc.) then you might not be
talking past each other as much, imho.

It also seems to me that neither one of you are going to convince
the other of your position.  If that is the case, then the goal of the
exchange should simply be clarification.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 00:00:02 EST