| This question <168|168> overall <167-11|169-3> Che: <158-2|195>. |
| Question 280: If the value of gold changes over time, does this impair its role as standard of prices? Does it impair its role as measure of value? |
| [168] Che: In considering to two functions of money as both its role as a standard of price and of a measure of value, it begs the question as to whether over time does the value of gold as changes, does this in fact lead to or somehow lessen or impede it role in these two functions. |
| I would argue that it does not affect the fundamental nature of gold as a standard of price, and similarly it does not negate gold as a measure of value. In consideration of gold and its relation to standard of price, Marx argues that, “no matter how the value of gold varies, different quantities of gold always remain the in the same value-relation to each other.” 192:2/o Thus, according to Marx, the fix measure of gold always will equate to price, and the only varying factor will be the value, which will fluctuate. |
| In addition when analyzing the effect of the change of the value of gold, it becomes apparent that likewise its role as a measure of value is still valid under such changes. This is apparent when Marx asserts that the change in the value of gold |
| “affects all commodities simultaneously, and therefore, other things being equal, leaves the mutual relations between their values unaltered, although those values are now all expressed in higher or lower gold prices than before.” 192:2/o |
| It can be seen then that changes that take place in the value of gold do not act to hinder the role gold plays in establishing itself as the standard of price, or as the measure of value. It is however very curious to note that depending on the role that it is undertaking it is either the value or the price that is the factor that is affected by these changes, a sort of inverse effect. When taking the role of the standard of price it is the value that is being compromised, and vice versa, as a measure of value gold prices are affected. Perhaps, this is why Marx so closely scrutinizes the function of money or gold as a standard of price, because this function, as well as classical economists tend to marginalize, equate, or at least confuse value for the price. To distinguish between value and price lends credence to the notion that value is not the price, and that additionally to illustrate that price cannot measure the social aspect and value that is inherent in human labor. This being a fundamental tenet of Marx's theory. |
| Hans: Far from impairing its role as measure of value, the variability of the value of gold even helps it. Do you see why? |
| Your first paragraph is terrible English. This affected your grade. |
|
|
|||||