This question <542|660> overall <565|567> Marinda: <548|596>.  
  Question 192: Was Roscher erroneous when he said that money is a pleasant commodity?   
  [566] Marinda: Yes, in several ways. Money is not just a commodity, it is the universal equivalent form of value. Gold may be a commodity in itself, but Roscher does not say what makes gold or any other commodity become “money”. The only thing he could have meant by calling it “pleasant” is that he thinks it is fun to have lots of it for oneself, to do with as one pleases. Money does have use-value for the one who possesses it, but it is also associated with much un-pleasantness indeed. (Just for fun, from my office wall, taken from some newspaper - ) The love of money is the root of evil. Book of Timothy, ch.1 The lack of money is the root of all evil. George Bernard Shaw. There's a certain Buddhistic calm that comes from having...money in the bank. Tom Robbins Would Marx say that social1 relations (or relations of production) which require one to have money to survive are the cause of much evil?   
  Hans: Probably yes. I think part of Marx's joke is also that being “pleasant” is not a property of something which one can discover in an object. It is one of these attributive properties like beauty.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: