babyfinland posted:yes it is ron paul
babyhueypnewton posted:lol is this guy Ron Paul? No one uses gold to measure the economy because we do not spend gold on things but dollars, and we havent had a gold backed dollar since 1971.
Thanks Paul Krugman
The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of
value generally, quite distinct from their palpable and real bodily
·· form; it is therefore a purely ideal or notional form.
and that
...gold serves as an ideal measure of value, only because it has already, in the process of exchange, established itself as the money-commodity.
i.e. a historical contingency
100 years before anybody dreamed of abandoning the gold standard (exaggeration).
Not exactly sure what you're asking, money represents SNLT but fluctuates for supply and demand, the only difference between now and Marx's time is the imaginary value of gold has been replaced by the imaginary value of U.S. military and economic power.
Here's good friend of the forums McCain on money: I've never criticized his understanding of economics.
http://mccaine.org/2010/12/19/marx-and-monetary-theory/
ofc Mccain and I are also just random assholes on the internet 
babyhueypnewton posted:the imaginary value of gold has been replaced by the imaginary value of U.S. military and economic power.
i thought that the value of gold was not "imaginary" but rather derived from the SNLT required to extract it from the ground (and process etc), and Marx spends a good deal of time in chapter 3 of vol 1 talking about what happens when SNLT required for extraction (and processing etc) of e.g. silver changes relative to that of gold, so that's the labor that counts for the exchange value of money based on gold. so what labor counts for modern US dollars? government employees?
c_man posted:babyhueypnewton posted:the imaginary value of gold has been replaced by the imaginary value of U.S. military and economic power.
i thought that the value of gold was not "imaginary" but rather derived from the SNLT required to extract it from the ground (and process etc), and Marx spends a good deal of time in chapter 3 of vol 1 talking about what happens when SNLT required for extraction (and processing etc) of e.g. silver changes relative to that of gold, so that's the labor that counts for the exchange value of money based on gold. so what labor counts for modern US dollars? government employees?
you are correct that there is a contradiction between the infinite desire of capital for circulation and the real limitations of a money commodity that must be produced with real labour, circulated through physical means, and the physical need for a safe store of value and the value lost when money is not circulating and that gold causes many problems that paper money solves (though paper money has its own problems). but this is not the essence of money nor the fundamental contradiction, there has never been a time in history in which gold = money and people actually used gold coins as money (even in ancient times gold sat in temples while debt served as the mode of exchange and coinage served as the measure of government power for taxes and military spending *same as now* 
). gold is simply a way of creating confidence which has been replaced by oil, U.S. bonds, military might, and a host of other things which go under the category of dollar-hegemony.
I think you're confused because money has value since it is a real thing (printed in the treasury like any other physical thing) but this is basically negligible. Money does not have a price and does not function like any other commodity since it is the one commodity that represents the common value of all other commodities:
The price of the commodity which serves as a measure of value and hence as money, does not exist at all, because otherwise, apart from the commodity which serves as money I would need a second commodity to serve as money - double measure of value. ... There can therefore be no talk of a rise or fall in the price of money.
Marx as quoted in Moseley:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/TRANSFORMATION.pdf
The product in its natural form is already money, it does not need to be first transformed into money by exchange, by a process of circulation. It moves from the production process into the circulation sphere not in the form of commodity capital that has to be transformed back into money capital, buy rather as money capital that has to be transformed back into productive capital, i.e. has to buy new labour-power and materials of production. The money form of the circulating capital, that consumed in labour-power and means of production, is replaced not by the sale of the product, but rather by the natural form of the product itself, i.e. not by withdrawing its value again from circulation in the money form, but rather by adding money newly produced.
babyhueypnewton posted:the de facto currency is determined by politics and historical contingency, not like dollars are cheaper to make than euros cause they use less ink or something.
yeah this is obviously true but marx is very clear that the actual SNLT embodied in the money commodity is what sets the price. like pages 213-214 in the most recent penguin edition is where he talks about the actual value (here i assume he means SNLT) of the metal changing have having an effect on the prices of commodities. so on one hand i agree that it makes no sense to have it be something directly to do with the people working in making ink more efficient or whatever, but on the other marx is very clear about this. which is what makes me think of the MMT arguments about modern currencies essentially being coupons that can be redeemed on tax day.
maybe im reading this wrong if i am please forgive
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/26/strange_bedfellows_putin_the_chomskyite_left_and_the_ghosts_of_the_cold_war/
is getting absolutely destroyed in the comments and he has decided to wade down into them to respond ... no lie, all the top rated comments are telling him to go home with his state department propaganda, its pretty cool. Take your "W" as Drake said to a white guy.
babyhueypnewton posted:WildStalins posted:the real movementis p cool
actually bothered to read this blog and it's horrible. no offense to you but this guy is 100% wrong about almost everything but the issues disputed are pretty difficult so it's not easily apparent why.
http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/i-critical-weaknesses-in-andrew-klimans-argument-on-the-falling-rate-of-profit/
My justification for this approach is simple: In Capital and throughout his career, Marx employed a commodity money in his analysis to reach his conclusions. I have yet to find a single credible argument against gold as standard of prices in the analysis of empirical data. Thus, it does not have to be demonstrated why a commodity money is necessary for analysis within labor theory. Rather, labor theorists must explain why a commodity money is not necessary — why, in other words, a valueless fiat currency can serve in place of gold as standard of prices.
lol is this guy Ron Paul? No one uses gold to measure the economy because we do not spend gold on things but dollars, and we havent had a gold backed dollar since 1971. btw this appears to be the main point of the blog as every post I've seen mentions it.
I'm all for random anonymous knowledge clashing, removing personalities, cliques, and academia from the equation, but there are too many blogs and websites full of bullshit these days.
that guy calls himself Jehu, he has a twitter and askfm
babyfinland posted:the question of money was debated in anarchist spain and early ussr. bordiga was against money you should check him out
no do not check him out
TheIneff posted:hmm why is bordiga problematic huh
