====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:07 -0600, ehrbar wrote: > As I understand Marx, here is what money does NOT do: > > (a) Money does not equalize commodities. Commodities are not equal because > they can be exchanged for money, but commodities are equal because they > contain abstract human labor, and their exchangeability for money is an > outward expression of this inner equality. > .... > Here is what money DOES do: > > (1) As already said in (a), money is the medium which allows > commodities to express on the surface (and thus make operational) the > invisible values inside them. This is the first function of money, > "measure of value." And money does not equalise abstract labor? It seems that "invisible values" can be calculated but not measured in any operational sense since the value of the sum of money for which the commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic value. You cannot even tell if there is any value hidden away in there since things can have a price without having a value. Is there any empirical way of telling whether there is any invisible value in a commodity? It doesn't seem to affect anything observable in any way whatsoever. There has been discussion about the nature of abstract labor on the list earlier: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2008w11/msg00238.htm ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
