OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: (OPE-L) Re: Unproductive Labour

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

Hi Jerry

Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>:

> > If money is an equivalent then there must be an equality such as:
> >  the value of the procuded commodity = the value of the money it sells for
> > Price value deviations are therefore impossible.
> 
> This is the case only in the aggregate abstracting from temporal and
> spatial deviations.

OK.  We have got two different notions of equivalance, hard and soft.
The hard version says that whenever a product is sold, the seller gets an
equivalent amount of money.  The soft version says that the seller does not get

an equivalent amount of money, or only does so by chance.  Is money really an
equivalent in the soft version?  Is it a reasonable use of the term?  An
unequal equivalent?

Phil
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]