This question <135-1|138-3> overall <137|137-2> PumpkinStar: <132|137-2>.

Question 147: The difference between the Money form and the Universal equivalent form is a small one; nevertheless it has important implications. Elaborate.

[137-1] PumpkinStar: Like [55] PowderNow's response to the question, we must begin with the example given by Marx.

20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or = 10 pounds of tea = 40 pounds of coffee, etc.

The Universal equivalent form and the Money form differ in one slight aspect. Where in the universal form, any commodity can take the specific form (In this case, it would be the linen) whereas the money form creates an independent standard, unrelated to the commodities. In this example, Linen stands for an Universal equivalent, due to conveinience (this represents a pseudo-barter system) where in the Money form, Marx uses Gold, which is recognized in our society as a constant Universal equivalent form. This replaces the instability of price fluctuations. In order for the Money form to succeed, the commodity representing “money” must be stable and must be accepted as the Universal equivelant at all times (at least in the present, if not in the future)

Hans: The formula you wrote down is the Expanded form of value, not the Universal one. Money is never on the left, and it is not active either.

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: