me: > in other words, the price (and exchange value) of the currency is set > by (artificially-restricted) supply and demand.
Paul: > This seems a fallback to the economics 101 Econ. 101 isn't absolutely wrong. Instead, the problem with it is that it's incomplete, one-sided. That is, it describes only appearances, omitting the social structure and dynamics of capitalism. That is, Marx's analysis does not _negate_ supply and demand (Econ. 101) as much as put it into context. In any event, Econ. 101 doesn't say that the price of a currency is based on state power, though it can be read as implying that. > The currency has no price, but is the measure of price, the problem is to > explain how a standard of price and measure of value which itself has no > value can operate as a social form.< Currency has a price: to me its price refers to the amount of goods and services that are necessary to buy a unit of currency. That's nothing but the inverse of the average price level. Alternatively, one could talk about the value of currency (how much socially-necessary abstract labor-time is required to make a unit of currency) or its exchange-value (how much socially-necessary abstract labor-time a unit of currency can command). With fiat money -- maintained by state power -- the exchange-value of currency exceeds its value. For other prices, it's not currency that is used as a measure but rather the units of the currency (US$, British pounds, etc.) How can a standard of price operate as a social form? for fiat money, it's state power which allows it to do so. Currency is not a measure of value. Instead, it's hours of socially-necessary abstract labor time which measure value. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
