| This question <87|101> overall <98|100> Geek: <626|154>. |
| Question 205: How does the General Equivalent form of value express the labor represented in value not only negatively but also positively? |
| [99] Geek: The general equivalent form expresses labor positively by making it the reduction of the mode of exchange. Meaning that the linen in this example is the directly exchangeable good, which means that the labor input to create the linen is the actual value that you are trading. |
| All goods in this market are actually going to be traded in terms of how much linen labor is required to produce the other products. |
| This turns your linen labor into the general equivalent. This also means the value of linen, and thus linen labor, could rise and drop depending on the whims of other traders, (people needing more or less linen). If this is the case, would a general equivalent with no “real” value (like money) be much more efficient? Since it has no real value, its exchange rate would be much more stable than an arbitrary measure of labor. |
| Hans: Good question. But in the real world, the non-monetary uses of the money commodity (gold) only use up a small amount of gold compared to the monetary uses, therefore fluctuations in this use do not make a difference. |
|
|
|||||