This question <562-2|563-7> overall <562-2|562-8> Clay: <552|562-8>. graded C+  
  Question 290: Explain in your own words the meaning of Marx's statement: “Although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.”   
  [562-7] Clay: Gold and silver are not by nature money because they are commodities themselves. Labor is necessary to extract the metals and therefore the metals have value. Because gold and silver are divisable and can be re-smelted to represent any use-value. When money (paper or coin) is introduced there must be some “backing” to the money, without the backing it is just a worthless piece of paper. This is especially true in Marx's time where all money was backed by gold or silver. This “backing” makes money by nature gold and silver. Money by nature is an abstraction that only held (in Marx's time) value because it was backed by gold and silver. Gold and silver by nature are minerals that once extracted they become commodities that can be exchanged. Because they are used as the “backing” for all money, money by nature is gold and silver. Gold and silver can't by nature be money because they are just minerals that have unique properties therefore they function as the money commodity.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: