the cb can just make mopney

you justify morals through any means

why does the money have value

mathematics is one of them

you can create all these equations to prove something you think is moral

I'm not justifying any moral stance here lol.

Morality is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

how else do you justify this then

on what basis

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/2015/06/fiat-money-destroys-labour-theory-of.html

For Marx, fiat is not and never was money. It is a token of money. This is critical, because Marx never argues in Capital that fiat currency had to be a commodity; he said money had to be a commodity. Marx insisted fiat was only a token of money, a placeholder (if you will) for money itself in circulation. While a token of money is not money, commodity money could itself enter circulation and function as a token of itself. Money could directly fill the function of currency in its own bodily form, but a mere paper token, like fiat currency, could never be money.


This approach, I argue, allows us to broaden the discussion beyond simply asking the question, “Does money have to be a commodity”. Having established that a token currency did not have to be money, i.e., a commodity, we can now ask a more important question: How did a mere token of money take on a life of its own and begin to function as if it is money in place of a money commodity?

i get the whole thing, the workers create something worth 10 dollars, they get 2 dollars in return

i get it

There is in fact no place in the law of value as proposed by Marx where he ever states currency had to be pegged to a commodity money. What he actually states is this: If the currency is not pegged to a definite quantity of commodity money, there would be no price standard.

but its not pegged

money is not a commodity its a means of exchsnge

a numeraire

As many people know in Marx’s ‘transformation problem’, prices of production do not seem to be consistent with the prices of the same commodities based on their labor values. The labor value price of any commodity is v; while its capitalistic production price is v+s. Do the math: v = v+s, only when s = 0 or v = 0. When s = 0, v = v+0 = v. And, since labor power is the only source of surplus value, when v = 0, s must be 0 by definition, because if no living human labor is employed in the production process, no surplus value can be produced.


The so-called transformation problem states that prices in the capitalistic mode of production contains a contradiction that cannot be resolved. To overcome this contradiction, you have to suppress the values of commodities within circulation and this is just what debased fiat does.

And, since labor power is the only source of surplus value

All money is a non-commodity?

bro its not

money is NOT a commodity

the austrians always say that and i get real pissed

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/2015/05/wicksteed-on-contradiction-in-chapter-1.html

A commodity is something that is bought and sold, or exchanged in a market. ... It has an exchange value. Money can very well be a commodity.

And is, subjectively speaking.

what can you exchane money for

money?

Money.

so you can buy money?

Umm.. yeah? Lol

Happens all the time.

how do i buy money

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/the-standard-definition-of-money-is-in-error.html

In the standard definition, Number 3 cannot possibly be true. Were Number 3 true, money would have value of itself. The value of money would be independent of what ever else an economy produced. But consider, the best monies are those instruments which have no intrinsic value whatever. How can any amount of something which has no value, be a store of value? Even where commodities have been used for money, (and this may be the origin of the error,) they have tended to be those commodities, precious metals, for instance, which, because of their properties, were of only limited economic use. The reason for this is known and simple: These commodities had to be more valuable as money than they were valuable as commodities. If they were more valuable as commodities, they would be consumed, and so their use as money would disappear. But this implies that the value of these commodities, as money, over their value as a commodity, is not intrinsic, but as with plain fiat money, purely a matter of other factors. That is, the value of the commodity as money is not based on any intrinsic value of the commodity to the economy.

So fiat money has no intrinsic value, and therefore cannot be a store of value. If the economy produced only money, that money would have no value. It does not have value as, say, a refrigerator full of food has value, or a tank filled with gasoline. But, what the third function of money actually is is as a store of demand. If you have $100 in the bank, or in your pocket, you have a store of demand, which you can keep as long as you want, and when you choose to, you can spend it. You can demand something which is offered for sale, to the amount of $100.

There is such a thing as commodity money, which has uses outside of the realm of exchange.

i love jews 😻

yeah ut we dont use those anymore

@Deleted User That's quite a strawman.

i got invited here