[OPE-L:4094] [ALEJANDRO R] Re: Causes of inflation

Gerald Lev (glevy@pratt.edu)
Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:24:50 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

Next message: aramos@aramos.bo: "[OPE-L:4095] Re: Depreciation -- S.O.S"
Next message: aramos@aramos.bo: "[OPE-L:4095] Re: Depreciation -- S.O.S"
Previous message: john ernst: "[OPE-L:4093] Re: Depreciation -- S.O.S"

To save on a post, let me answer Alejandro's question. The Kautsky book is
out-of-print. Bauer's book _Die Teuerung_ and the articles from _Die Neue
Zeit_ by Bauer, J.v.G., Kautsky, Spectator, and Varga are also
out-of-print and were, as far as I know, never re-published in German let
alone translated into English./In solidarity, Jerry
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:34:24
From: aramos@aramos.bo
To: ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:4089] Re: Causes of inflation

> Karl Kautskys _The High Cost of Living: Changes in Gold-
> Production and the Rise in Prices_ (Chicago, Charles H.
Kerr, 1915, 114 p., o.p.).

Is it "available"?


> > Not exactly. I think that FROM THE BEGINNING, Marx
> > introduces, at the same "conceptual level" both "symbol
> > money" and "commodity money" ("gold"). The relation
> > between both kinds of money plays a central role, although
> > it is mainly implicit in Marxs presentation. Striclty
> > speaking, there is no such a "commodity money" monetary
> > system in Marxs text.


> I dont understand the above. Could you explain your understanding of
> Marxs "implicit" position more?

Alejandro again:

I mean that despite he presents this relation ("symbol
money"/"reserve money") --which is the gold standard ratio
of exchange between gold and pound-- Marx does not analyse
the dynamics of it, and paid scarce attention to it.
Therefore, it is treated mainly as an "implicit" relation
in his whole presentation. This does not imply that the
relation is not there, but only that is always assumed to
be constant.

> If gold is (or was) the money-commodity, why shouldnt we refer to a
> commodity-money system?

Because Marx's monetary system is not "exhausted", fully
depicted, by the fact he assumes "gold" as "reserve money".
If you say that Marx presents a "commodity-money system"
you are neglecting that he also presents the "symbol
money", and that a key relation in this system is precisely
that between both kinds of money.

There are some authors who believe that Marx has a
"commodity money" theory. Recently, I read a book written by
Benetti where the author, from the beginning assumes that
"money" in Marx is "gold", and ONLY gold. This neglects the
more complex "model" presented from the Capital I, Ch. 3
on. (Obviously if we include the draft of Vol III, his
monetary theory is still more complex: credit money,

Alejandro Ramos M.