Re: The Axiom of Gross Substitution

[Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxx>]

> From: pdavidso <pdavidso@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:07:52 -0500
> To: Harry Veeder <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: The Axiom of Gross Substitution

>>
>> Harry:
>> Sorry, I am not very good at expressing myself in words.
>> Let me say... even when something produced does not serve as a substitute
>> for money, there always other another thing, another valuable,  which is not
>> produced and does serve as substitute for money. e.g. land and labour are
>> often regarded as substitutes for money.
>
> No labour cannot be used as a store of value -- unless you are talking about
> slaves.

Slavery is not necessary.
Ownership of an asset is no guarantee that the _value_ of the asset will not
fall to zero. If the asset of a business is an employee, the value of the
asset falls to zero (from the point of view of the business owner) if the
employee leaves the business.


> But both labour and land have high carrying costs and hence in a word
> where there are financial assets with low carrying costs-- land and slave
> labour is not a good substitute for money.

Maybe, but in the end they can't be completely avoided as substitutes for
money.

Harry