Chris B. writes:
>As Jim indicates we do not have to be rigidly dogmatic about Marx's
>approach to claim that he wrote not a little about credit money and debt,
>and about capitalist crises.
>
>The point Jim makes about the hegemonic position of the US in global
>capitalism is important in current world politics. I suppose it is a small
>step towards demystifying gold.
>
>(Interesting that the price of gold has not yet risen significantly.)
gold prices rise when inflation is expected, no? if pen-l fears of
deflation are relevant, gold prices should fall. (And why does anyone
really care about gold prices? it seems more irrelevant than the Dow.)
>... even if the majority of peoples and states of the world are not yet
>ready to abandon capitalism, they could begin to see the advantages of a
>world financial system that is a little more rational than relying on US
>hegemony.
>
>Although Marx did assume the gold standard, he analyses it as universal
>money, and one of the things that is needed now is a more rational form of
>universal money.
>To some extent capitalism is groping towards such an entity in that the
>Federal Reserve does consider to a degree its communications with other
>central banks and the overall shape of the global economy as part of its
>decisions. To some extent conceptual tools are emerging like baskets of
>currencies. There are also IMF special drawing rights.
Bancor?
>The US probably calcuates that is has several more decades before the
>dollar needs to be threatened in its role of universal money, by the renminbi.
?? the renminbi?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
