Re: (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money commodity?

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 17:07:23 EST

Fred, now you are not really answering me.. did you follow my points?

Do you not see the  gap left open for apologists of any issuing state/s
power, if fiduciary issue is supposed to be what it isn't, the actual
universal equivalent it is representing?

How can bank credit, forthcoming in manifold ways in many countries under
different banking regimes play this role? It seem to me you are suggesting
that the chain of   'accidental' equivalences  is sufficient to promote an
agreement between parties to different sections of such a long chain of
equivalences, over the quantity of paper ( weight?) acceptable at a
universal level. This seems to me entirely idealistic, counter to any real
notion of materialism.

my answer is simple enough,..... by reference to gold. Inevitably other
commodirties will always, and always have been  referred to, as capital
constantly searches for a
commodity to best meet its needs for a universal equivalent, eg platinum,
silver, oil, corn etc.or desperately, a  'Baker's dozen'.
but it seems clear to me that the blunt impossibility of de-monetising gold,
despite numerous 'attempts', its constant
resurgence in every discussion, shows that beneath the surface (no pun
intended) the exchange of gold for paper claims on other commodities,
regulates the exchange process. This is a real issue. Thus November 13-14
Sat-Sun, International Herald Tribune ( and not todays furore over
Greenspans new anxiety, or the Stiglitz - Peterson exchange at Wharton
recently ) Cohen  writtes of the real cost of gold..(p2)..'A metric ton of
ore yields 10.57 grams of gold'...No trace of its glow lurks in the weary
face of Fanie Sithole,47....Once a year, Sithole goes home to his wife and 5
children in Maputo. .... Work proceeds at an intense pace..."

Why this labour intensive process.?.. the need for this commodity? For me
Marx was quite right. What I don't understand is what  the problem is
understanding him.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money

> Paul, how do you think the MELT (the monetary expression of labor-time
> or the money-value produced per hour) is determined today?
> Comradely,
> Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 00:00:02 EST