[OPE-L:7407] Re: Re: RE: Commodity money in a Sraffian system

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paulo writes in 7404

> Gary, it seems to me that Marx`s argument is that gold can not have a price
> because its price would be it own self. By definition price has to be the
> expression of value in something different from the thing which is
> being measured.
> It  seems to me therefore that one can not interpret that phrase as being
> something equivalent to considering gold as the numeraire. The numeraire is
> tipically a way of closing a system which presents more variables
> than equations.
> Chosing a numeraire allows for the closure of the system. Marx does
> not seem to be
> closing any system!
> Paulo Cipolla

Yes indeed Marx attempted to demonstrate why capitalism was not a
closed but an open system susceptible to historical change by its
very contradictions.

So yes isn't there a big difference between a theory which must
select (and construct) a numeraire with (as Blaug emphasises) no real
world significance in order to close a system of equations in order
to throw into analytical relief a wage/profit frontier and a theory
which attempts to explain why in the bourgeois mode of production the
form of appearance of economic magnitudes has to be money which as a
result of this function carries the seeds of economic contradiction
and crisis?

Didn't Marx critique Ricardo for understanding money in terms mainly
of its exchange faciliating role in what was imagined to be a system
of preconciled quasi-barter (see excellent Aoki analyisis)?  How does
Sraffa's construction of the standard commodity as numeraire overcome
the problems which Marx isolated in Ricardo's theory of money? How
can the standard commodity even be said to be money in any sense
since it changes with every change in the productive configuration?
And since the standard commodity does change with every change in the
technical conditions, what kind of solution to Ricardo's wil o wisp
search for an invariant standard of value is this?

At any rate, did Sraffa himself think he had advanced or supported
Marx's or Keynes' critique of classical political economy's theory of
money with his analytical construction of the standard commodity?

All the best, Rakesh