Re: (OPE-L) Re: Realisation and seigneurage

[clyder@xxxxxxxxxx]

Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>:


>
> To explain inflation in the last 30 years (and the more recent wave
> of deflation experienced in many capitalist nations) we have to
> consider (among other issues) state macroeconomic policies including
> deficit spending,  aggregate demand and the trade cycle,  and
> international trade and currency exchange rates --  since inflation and
> deflation can not be comprehended only in terms of developments
> within an individual nation.

Thats fair enough, I dont want to go into all of this, just look
at the simpler theoretical issue below.

> But, I  understand the spirit of your
> question to be that you want to address the 'simple case' first.  Yet, if
> that is the case and you wish to discuss the relation between the
> quantity of value and the quantity of money, why not first discuss the
> even simpler case where there is a money commodity?
>
For two reasons
1. for a commodity money one can resort to explaining its value
   in terms of its cost of production.

2. No capitalist economy has ever used commodity money, they have
   all used state money - albeit at times reputedly tied to gold.

What I am asking the value form people is this:
 if it is sale for money that validates value what validates money

We know that the value of money changes over time but if we conceed this,
then money can not be the measure of value, value must have a prior
existence for us to be able to say that the value of money has fallen.
If that is the case, how can we assign money priority in validating
and measuring value?

> In solidarity, Jerry
>
> PS: when are you leaving for the Havana conference?
>
>