Alan Kerr
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok Prakash you feel dubious about whether I’m aware of what my view of money is. Tell me why your definition of money is true.
– ALB, It was fun trying to read your mind. Perhaps you should start new thread. Let's just say that I stand by my comment (#67).
Thanks ALB,Assume a stable currency. The (labour time) value of commodities still changes and supply and demand still change. And both still change general prices.Let's just say that I stand by my comment (#67).Only you know what you mean (#69). It sounds to me that you mean that up to a point the Bank can create Bank deposits by lending money. That much is true. Then it sounds like you are claiming that Bank deposits cause inflation. But that has never been true.If cashless society works then it will soon enough settle that argument one way or the other.
Prakask, previously you said that the proof of the right view of money stems from the right definition. I cannot agree with that. But now you say the opposite that the right definition stems from the right view of money. I cannot disagree with that. I've been saying the same throughout. You cannot have it both ways. Debate doesn't work like that. I mean which argument are you trying to attack me with here in your comment #57? "… 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."(From Prakash comment #57)
Thanks Dave, Yes, Karl Marx gives details. Just to be clear of course it's one thing when State says we can convert paper banknotes into fixed weight of gold. If I recall then if each note moves one time per day then the number of notes in circulation = sum of prices paid in cash.It's another thing when we cannot convert paper banknotes into fixed weight of gold. Again, if I recall then the law of paper money is that the amount of paper money in circulation must not exceed the amount of gold that would circulate if there was no paper money. Exceed and the value represented by each note must fall. That is general price inflation.Yet another thing is becoming possible. Suppose pure electronic money. Then sum of prices paid in cash = 0. Then there are no coins or notes for the Bank to issue in excess – no more general price inflation.
Dave B you say"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."(Dave B comment #50)But you just need to read up to chapter 3 section 3."… We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by the State and having compulsory circulation…"(Marx Capital Volume I Chapter 3 Section 3)That is what you call fiat money.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm#a36
Ok Prakash you are convinced that I'm confused and have a confused view of money. Tell me why I should switch to your 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.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.
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.
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?
Marcos sorry I thought that you were arguing with me. Thank you for your help. First, we agree that the president does not act just as an individual. He has to do with Political Parties. And Parties have to do with Economic Classes. The president is a big capitalist. Economic classes struggle one against another. By an economic class struggle we mean that one class has an interest in their way to stay alive even when a hindrance to production. Another class has an interest in a step forwards to the new way to produce wealth. That is economic law. We see this in The SPGB Preamble…In a similar way, we find that it's not the law in the legal sense of the president's laws that explain why, in the air, one gas must turn into another gas. Nor is it the definition (or name) that explains why one gas must turn into another. So it must be the laws of chemistry.In an exchange of commodities, 5 beds = 1 house, it is not the president's laws that explain if a house measures the usefulness of the beds. Nor is it the definition of money that explains. In that exchange, there is no money for us to define. Nor can the definition of money explain why one kind of inequality must turn into another. So it must be the laws of economics.
Marcos you say"We must understand the real economic laws of this society in the same way that Marx understood them and explained them on Capital. We can not take capitalism to a beauty parlour. There is not an individual able to change its logic and economical laws" Your reply (#38)But economic laws do change. In capitalist society, commodities sell on the average at their prices of production. That's the logic and economic laws. But small capitalist production begins with commodities selling on the average at their values. That's also the logic and economic laws. To understand economic laws is to explain why they must change. Will you now disprove the changes?Or, for instance, your Preamble to your SPGB Object says"Preamble"Capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production."The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production."Note there that the Preamble says"… The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist…"It is there that the big capitalist enterprise is the step forwards compared to that of the small capitalist. It is there that we must change but from one kind of inequality to another. It's the logic and economic laws. Will you disprove the change? Will you prove why this change cannot change? This is not all. Note how the Preamble goes on"… The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production…"Now note how it is Socialist Production which is the step forwards. We must change from capitalist to Socialist Production. That is the SPGB Object. It's also the logic and economic laws. Now will you prove why this change also cannot change? You are SPGB. Come on! Please explain Marcos.
Prakash we also welcome your arguments.We must hold the laws of economics to the same standard of proof as the laws of chemistry.I've said how one gas has one name and another gas has another name. If that proves how air is more than one gas then this must revolutionize everything. Next, make me famous. Then, I'll accept your economic thesis.But how will the name of a gas show, for example, why one kind of gas must change into another? And how will the name for money show why one kind of inequality must change into another?I want to go on but not to hog the discussion. Who here will explain, in short and broadly, why one kind of inequality must change into another?
Prakash thank you, and your proof is not proof. See your reply (#29).Otherwise, I should claim to be the first to prove that air is more than one kind of gas.My proof would be that this kind of gas does not have the same name as that kind. But that would not be proof. Proof is more than names.Why not rather set out from Aristotle's point? See my reply (#18). But then Aristotle's point is a starting-point only.
