From: Allin Cottrell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 21 2004 - 19:35:55 EDT
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, ajit sinha wrote: > --- Allin Cottrell <cottrell@WFU.EDU> wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >> >>> A=B >>> B=C >>> Therefore, A=C >>> xdollar equals y of a composite commodity that >> requires z labor hours >>> to produce; hence x dollars is equivalent to z >> labor hours. From this >>> equivalence one can calculate the MELT and the >> "value of money". >> >> Why would one use such a roundabout and error-prone >> means of >> calculating the MELT? The obvious approach is >> Foley's: take the ratio >> of the money-value of net output to the aggregate >> labour time embodied >> in that net output. This is both easier -- given >> the available >> official statistics -- and more accurate. Your >> proposal contains an >> arbitrary and potentially fluctuating element, >> namely, the >> relationship between the price-to-value ratio for a >> "small" composite >> commodity such as the one Greenspan allegedly uses, >> and the >> price-to-value ratio for social output as a whole. > ___________________ > Allin, you should have made it explicit that the > aggregate labor time embodied in the net output in > Foley's system assumes that all unskilled labor is > abstract labor. Thus abstract labor is already assumed > before money comes into the picture. All the talk > about the money doing the abstracting leads to MELT > melting away before one's eyes. In context, this assumption did not seem particularly germane. I'm comfortable with the assumption myself (i.e. I don't think that it's money per se that "does the abstracting"). I agree with what might be the burden of your message, namely that the MELT is a fairly trivial concept. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 24 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT