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 Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Claus Germer wrote: > Thus, it seems to me, you were supposed to start with the > state providing a way for measuring the values of > commodities according to labor times. This is to pre-judge the issue. The state issues tokens, in payment for goods and services. People are willing to accept those tokens because they require them to cancel their tax liabilities -- or because they expect to be able to pass them on to others who need them to cancel their tax liabilities. These tokens end up circulating in general exchange for privately-produced goods and services, and the prices of the latter are denominated in the state-tokens, as unit of account. Now the question of whether, and if so how, those prices come to reflect the labour-time required to produce those various commodities, is a distinct and separate question. But we can be sure that the answer to this question will not be that the state-money "measures" the labour content of commodities. That notion is a theoretical dead-end. > [Y]ou don't say anything about the way values can be > measured by a money created by the state... That is because I believe that _no_ form of money can do any such thing. Labour values can be _measured_ by an econometrician using input-output methods, never by money. But certain economic mechanisms can produce the effect that money-prices reflect, more or less accurately, labour values. > [I]t is not clear that for Smith the labor content of > commodities is common knowledge *in that rude state of > society*, as he says. If not, what possible basis does he have for asserting that barter exchange ratios will be in line with relative required labour times? > Second and more important, it would be better to start from > Marx, whose theory is the one we are discussing... True, we are trying to assess Marx's theory of money, but (as you know) it is my contention that his theory of money is quite inadequate, so it is not helpful to the debate to propose that we treat it as the starting point. Allin Cottrell.
- [OPE-L:2096] Re: The Money Supply, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2096] Re: The Money Supply, Gerald Levy Tue 11 Jan 2000, 23:08 GMT
- [OPE-L:2115] Re: Re: The Money Supply, Michael J Williams Wed 12 Jan 2000, 18:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:2116] Re: re: The Money Supply, Michael J Williams Wed 12 Jan 2000, 18:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:2076] Re: Re: Re: Re: the money supply, Claus Germer Mon 10 Jan 2000, 11:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:2123] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the money supply, Allin Cottrell Thu 13 Jan 2000, 00:33 GMT
- [OPE-L:2070] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Sun 09 Jan 2000, 20:13 GMT
- [OPE-L:2072] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Sun 09 Jan 2000, 20:37 GMT
- [OPE-L:2073] Re: Re: value-form theories, Michael J Williams Sun 09 Jan 2000, 23:15 GMT
- [OPE-L:2078] absolute and relative surplus value, Gerald Levy Mon 10 Jan 2000, 11:51 GMT