| This question <78|78> overall <77|80> BHales: <547|116>. |
| Question 163: Why doesn't Marx say that the simplest value relation is that between commodity and money? |
| [78] BHales: Commodities and Money. In TimJim's assertion in [2005fa:243] he addresses why the simplest value relation is not between money and commodity. TimJim states that money is just a median form of exchange between two items. I agree with this assertion. The simplest form of exchange is the direct exchange between two commodities. In societies before currency existed, direct exchange was the simplest form of exchange between two commodities. Money was created, for one, as a store of value because some commodities are perishable. So one could produce a commodity now and receive exchange for it at a later date. Taxes and inflation of money add to the complexities of commodity and money exchange. |
| Marx reduces things to their simplest forms to explain his theories. It would only be logical then, for him to reduce the exchange of commodities to their roots of direct exchange rather than exchange a commodity for money and then the money for the desired commodity. This provides the framework for Hans response to Tiny in [2005fa:79] where he replies that “money itself is worthless.” |
| Hans: By “money is worthless” I meant to say that money does not have a use-value. Money is value in a form which is no longer tied to some particular use-value. |
|
|
|||||