IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Akira MATSUMOTO wrote: > The function of measure of value can be substitute of other > materials such as paper in the unit of account. But the > measure of value itself can not be taken of because the > mirror of value must be the commodity. How does the > Non-valuabels measure the value of the commodity? How is the > non-valuables determined its value itself ? You're supposing (as Marx did) that setting the exchange value of a commodity must, in some ultimate sense, depend on a comparison of (a) the value of the commodity with (b) the value of the monetary unit itself (which becomes an impossibility if money has no inherent value). But in my opinion this is quite wrong. It is not the only way in which relative prices can come to reflect relative labour-contents. Allin Cottrell.
- [OPE-L:2010] Re: A possible paradox in the theory of value, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2010] Re: A possible paradox in the theory of value, Gerald Levy Sun 02 Jan 2000, 23:56 GMT
- [OPE-L:2007] Re: Re: A possible paradox in the theory of value, Paul Cockshott Sat 02 Jan 2010, 20:24 GMT
- [OPE-L:2005] Re: the money supply, Gerald Levy Sat 02 Jan 2010, 13:41 GMT
- [OPE-L:2014] Re: Re: the money supply, Akira MATSUMOTO Mon 03 Jan 2000, 20:43 GMT
- [OPE-L:2018] Re: Re: Re: the money supply, Allin Cottrell Tue 04 Jan 2000, 02:48 GMT
- [OPE-L:2004] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Sat 02 Jan 2010, 13:26 GMT
- [OPE-L:2311] Call for Articles for _JYASS_, Gerald Levy Mon 31 Jan 2000, 17:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:2303] Re: Re: civil society, Paul Cockshott Sun 30 Jan 2000, 21:27 GMT
- [OPE-L:2302] Re: value form and m-c-m', Paul Cockshott Sun 30 Jan 2000, 21:08 GMT