| This question <95|94> overall <500|503> Hans: <500|509>. |
| Question 228: Compare Marx's derivation of money with the derivations of money in modern Economics |
| [502] Hans: Marx versus modern monetary theory. Kibosh's [495] is based on the mainstream theory of money, which is quite different than Marx's theory: |
| (a) Money is not a societal value placed on a piece of paper in order to make it a means of exchange. Instead, money is first of all a measure of value. At Marx's time because it was a value (congealed abstract labor) itself, namely gold, and nowadays because the Federal Reserve pursues policies to preserve its value. |
| (b) Let me say it again with different words. In mainstream economics one occasionally hears the aphorism that “money is what money does.” I.e., it is not important what money is, it is only important what people agree to do with it. Marx did not subscribe to this notion. In the background of Marx's arguments is always: if something has the powers to do something, then this is always because of what this thing is. (I could go on with the implications of this: people are not the only things in the world which can do something, but things generally act.) |
| (c) Money is not a mere intermediary but it has become an object which is desired in its own right. Marxists would call it reductionist to “reduce” money to what it can buy. Money is more than the goods it can buy. |
| (d) The value of money represents labor time and not “strength” or “opportunity cost.” That's why it is called the labor theory of value. |
|
|
|||||