Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
' you can actually measure the usefullness of a 'commodity' but only with a 'commensurable' usefullness of another. ' ( comment by Dave B on 04/01/2018 ; # 43 ) Dave, I agree with this view of yours. We can evaluate two commodities by comparing their use-value. For example, an LED light of Japanese make and another LED of the US make can be evaluated in terms of their luminance and longevity, and then, comparing their costs, we can conclude which one we should buy if we wish to spend our hard-earned money sensibly. I've also taken note of your observation : ' Aristotle was very close to [ the ] labour theory of value. ' Thank you for taking part i this discussion. I'd like you to respond to my question : ' What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ? ' ( See my comment # 41 )
' The best example that we have is the case of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump they have been forced to go along with the logic of capitalism, instead of them making any changes on the economic base of this society, the economic base changed them ' ( comment by Marcos #40 )I agree with this view.
Prakash to learn is to trace our mistakes so mistakes do not hold us back from finding more mistakes. I believe you will find your mistakes since you want to get nearer to the truth. Your points (#41) are logical mistakes. Why start from the definition of money? Word definitions depend on who is doing the defining. The ancients define money and you say that they do not understand it. As a rule, word definitions are out-of-step with what we know about facts. We are always editing word definitions to bring them in step with what we know. But once more new discoveries outpace word definitions. Once more, we must redefine definitions. Joseph Priestley first made what we call oxygen but we do not have to accept his original definition for it. Is it a definition that proves the facts or facts that prove a definition? There are economists (from the marginal utility school) who want it that money really does measure usefulness. Now you say that the definition of money proves the facts about money. What then proves the definition?
Prakash,Please can I just remind you?Before you ask more (about your definition of money as proving facts), you need to answer what proves your definition?As we wait for your answer, the SPGB Preamble… is still the SPGB argument to change our way to produce wealth.
i ( 1 ) it follows from the very definition of money that money is not meant to measure the use-value ( worth ) of a commodity ; ( 2 ) we're aware of no reasons for claiming that money can measure the use-value of commodities ; ( 3 ) we're not aware either of any reason to believe that the use-value of a commodity is measurable in money ; ( 4 ) There exists no criterion for measuring the use-value in money. What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ? Point one is whole separate discussion re fiat money. Karl and fred actually conspiciously avoided it like the plague even though it was around in their time. I think they had it in Prussia , Russia and China? There is a a load of really interesting stuff on it re eastern seaboard of USA from the 1700’s onwards. 2, 3 and four is part of the marginal utility theory people’s argument that is no longer ‘marginal’ and was invented by Jevons who was an English mathematician and not an idiot. Karl and Fred knew about him as they briefly mentioned him once. Utility theory works well on people ship wrecked on a desert island were the utilities of any commodities that they have can’t be reproduced. So thus you might want to swap a jar of coffee record for 100oz of gold? Robinson Crusoe did end up making his own stuff and then he could think about whether or not the utility was worth the effort. But he could compare or think the amount of time it took to make one thing with that of another or its value. No exchange, no social relations and no market. The utility argument is not totally without merit. Thus you could say that the anti utility of working overtime for six months is worth the utility of a holiday. Then you could have; Labour time = anti utility = another utility[holiday] = someone else’s labour time. The marginal utility people basically blank both ends of that equation and just see the middle- sort of. I don’t really feel like going into it as it is like unravelling spaghetti.
' Prakash to learn is to trace our mistakes so mistakes do not hold us back from finding more mistakes. I believe you will find your mistakes since you want to get nearer to the truth. Your points are logical mistakes. Why start from the definition of money? Word definitions depend on who is doing the defining. The ancients define money and you say that they do not understand it. As a rule, word definitions are out-of-step with what we know about facts. We are always editing word definitions to bring them in step with what we know. But once more new discoveries outpace word definitions. Once more, we must redefine definitions. Joseph Priestly first made what we call oxygen but we do not have to accept his original definition for it. Is it a definition that proves the facts or facts that prove a definition? There are economists (from the marginal utility school) who want it that money really does measure usefulness. Now you say that the definition of money proves the facts about money. What then proves the definition? ' ( comment by Alan Kerr # 44 ) Dear Alan, I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I have no pretension to erudition. I'm ashamed of my ignorance of the ancients' definition of money and would like you to throw light on it. Nevertheless, your comment gives me the impression that you're over-certain that my definition of money is wrong. In this regard I'd like to state that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the definition of money I've referred to in my work is outright consonant with Marx's concept of money as we find it in the CAPITAL Volume I by Marx. The following citations are meant to throw light on this point. ' The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money form, is … ' ( PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION, CAPITAL Volume I ) ' It [ i.e. money] thus serves as a universal measure of value. ' ( section I, chapter III, CAPITAL Volume I by Marx ) ' The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money. ' ( section III, chapter III, ibid ) I want to start from the definition of money just because I think it deserves to be the premise of my logical formulation, and because I believe this definition of money is correct. You also seem to be over-certain that Marx is, and so I am, wrong on these points. And it seems to be the view of money that economists from the marginal-utility school hold that you believe is right, right ? I feel I should admit to my ignorance of how economists from the marginal-utility school view value, use-value, and money. Nevertheless, I must claim that if Marx's concept of money is not wrong, mine is not wrong either. And just out of curiosity, may I ask you to enlighten me about what led you to be so certain that the view of economists from the marginal-utility school is correct ? In my comment ( #41 ), I asked you to draw a conclusion from four points. It passes my comprehension why it should move you to wonder whether it is ' a definition that proves the facts or facts that prove a definition '. It's intriguing that just the other day you approved of my view of money and the definition of money that I premised my view on ( your comment #27 ). What revolutionised your stance and led you to do a volte-face and believe that Marx must be wrong, and that economists from the marginal-utility school must be right, I wonder. Joseph Priestly's ' original definition of oxygen ' may be faulty ( I do not know; I'm not a chemist ). It does not follow from this that the definition of everything else is faulty just as because Mendeleev's periodic table is wrong, it does not follow that the whole of chemistry is wrong, and that only whatever economists from the marginal-utility school think and say are right, OK ? Nevertheless, before concluding, I'd like to call your attention to to the fact that the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity, has won, to my credit, three Nobelist economists' endorsement so far ( see my comment #1 ) and the fact that none of the trio belongs to the Marxian school of thought, as far as I know.
( to ALB ) Alan believes all my points are ' logical mistakes '; he also believes that Marx's concept of money is wrong, and that economists that belong to the marginal-utility school are right ( Alan's comment #44 ). Do you also hold the same views on these points, ALB ? I expect to hear from you something sensible.
Thank you Prakash,Sorry I did not make myself clear.I am also a humble seeker after truth. In my comment #44, I refer to your view of the ancient's definition of money."… I don't think Aristotle had a clear concept of money— clear enough to be able to define it…"(Prakash #35)And yes, I did Google search and found that some marginal utility economists do want it as if money really does measure use-values. I can share a link to that if you wish. Do I think as they think? Or do you think as they think? We will see.Thank you for quoting my comment #44 above. I do not see that my comment #44 criticizes your definition of money one way or the other. But you're asking us to criticize your logic I think. See your whole comment (#41)Are you asking us to criticize your own original logic Prakash? Yes? Then it's your logic that we must criticize. So let's criticize.You start from a definition. You get your definition from a textbook,–Marx' book Capital.Why do you not answer where Marx, another humble seeker after truth, gets his definition from? It is my question. Question and answer is key to how logic works.As we wait for some answer, the SPGB Preamble… is still the SPGB argument to change our way to produce wealth.
I think we should move on. We do know where the money comes from, and what is the purpose of money, and how it evolved in our society. Our main concern is a society without money.
' … you need to answer what proves your definition [ of money ] ? ( Alan Kerr #49 ) In my comment ( # 51 ), I think I've cited enough evidence to show that my definition of money is premised on and consonant with Marx's view of money. I'd like to know whether you're satisfied with it, and if not, I'd like to know what you think disproves my definition of money.
Thank you,
And I’d like to know whether you Prakash are satisfied with your definition. I mean what do you see as Marx’ way to prove it?
Please say at once if you find my question impossible to answer.
I’ll be pleased to help.
Yes I’m satisfied with Marx’ way to prove.Dear Alan, your comments ( #53 & #56 ) give me the impression that you must be confused to a high degree. I don't think I ever asked you to state what ' marginal utility economists ' want or how they view money and use-value. In my comment ( # 51 ), I just wanted to know what led you to be so certain that the view of economists from the marginal-utility school is correct, and what led you to believe that Marx must be wrong. I'm wholly satisfied with and certain about the correctness of the definition of money based on Marx's view of it. I'm also outright certain about the correctness of my work. I don't think either that I ever asked you to state ' Marx' [sic] way to prove it ' ( your comment #56 ). I'd like you to have a close look at my comments #35, #41, #51, and #55, and state in clear terms what your stance on Marx's view of money and the correctness of the proof of the thesis at issue is.
' The answer to your question is no I don't. I don't think Alan K does either. ' ( ALB #59 )Should I take it to mean that you don't think that ' all my points are " logical mistakes " ' ( Alan's comment #44 ), that ' Marx's concept of money is wrong, and that economists that belong to the marginal-utility school are right ' ( Alan's comment #44 ) ? If you say ' yes ', I think I can also take it to mean that you approve of my claim to have presented humanity with the first and only proof of the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity, OK ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.