| This question <103|102> overall <100|102> Tyler: <701|342>. |
| Question 216: How does it become plain here that it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their values, but rather the reverse, it is the magnitude of the value of commodities which regulates the proportion in which they are exchanged? |
| [101] Tyler: ambiguity of values. This ambiguity of values: “There are a thousand different kinds of value, as many kinds of value as there are commodities in existence.” Is the reason we have adopted the concept of fiat money. Rather than basing the price of a good on barter, we have a set price for a good. Therefore everyone will pay for the product with paper money rather than trading by products of person's occupation (corn, coats, etc.). It is easier to simply say this product costs five dollars rather than listing out trade values for all other commodities (five bushels of corn, two coats, etc...) |
| Hans: The problem with your explanation is: why do people say “this product costs five dollars” instead “this product costs five hundred dollars” etc. Marx argues that one has to begin with a barter system, and that money develops out of this barter system. This development is not due to a social contract (everybody agrees to use paper dollars), but it is a gradual modification of the already existing social relations involving the barter. |
|
|
|||||