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

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 07:02:39 EST

Yes, Paul B, the message you sent on Sunday replying
to Rakesh was posted at that time.

Some time ago (on November 19) you wrote:

As a matter of fact Fred, I know of no one who would not be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold for any of their property , ( should they wish to sell it, even if they later had to exchange it for paper for  other reasons), that is to say that this commodity remains the money commodity, par excellence..  <<<

Interesting, since I know of no one  (save, possibly, Claus, Akira, or  
yourself) who would be prepared to accept a certain quantity of gold in
exchange for their property.  I know that if I wanted to sell property
like a house (which I don't own) or a boat (which I do) I wouldn't
accept gold as payment.  To begin with, I would have no confidence that
it was real or that it was 'pure'.  I certainly wouldn't want to pay
the extra expense and put up with a delay to hire an appraiser.
Also, I would feel very uncomfortable accepting gold from a security
perspective (I'd much rather receive a bank check).  And then I'd have the 
hassle and delay of selling the gold.  And -- given the frequent fluctuations 
in the price of gold (yes, gold _does_ have a price) -- I would feel 
uncomfortable holding on to the gold since I am not interested in gold 
speculation. And -- more to the point -- I know of no one in my 
community who would accept gold as payment for property of any 
significant worth.  If someone went to my landlord's office and proposed
to pay for real estate in gold, s/he would get laughed out of the office.

In solidarity, Jerry

PS: thanks about the reference to "course."  I guess it's another
instance of how language has changed since Marx's time.  Martha,
Fred, and you have each in your own ways helped to solve
the "mystery."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EST