Money as a measure of value and a standard of price

[Broletariat]

What exactly are the differences here, between measure of value and standard of price?

Das Kapital Chapter three: FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU

[ar734]

I would say value is measured by time, i.e., labor time; and price is the monetary expression of value, as determined traditionally by supply and demand, or for modern capitalism, by the monopolistic setting of prices.

[Broletariat]

I would say value is measured by time, i.e., labor time; and price is the monetary expression of value, as determined traditionally by supply and demand, or for modern capitalism, by the monopolistic setting of prices.

So money is a measure of value insofaras when commodities are compared to it they are equal in value IE labour time, but money is a standard of price in that... what exactly? One lump of gold is equal to 3 coats? So the move from measure of value to standard of price is from ideal to material?

[Impulse97]

Okay, I was going to be helpful and provide my 2 cents, but I honestly have no clue how to answer this. I haven't been brave enough to dive into Capital yet...

[Broletariat]

Okay, I was going to be helpful and provide my 2 cents, but I honestly have no clue how to answer this. I haven't been brave enough to dive into Capital yet...

From what I understand, the first three chapters are the killers, with chapter 3 being the most difficult (no objections on my part there) and that after chapter 3 it's easy sailing.

[ar734]

So money is a measure of value insofaras when commodities are compared to it they are equal in value IE labour time, but money is a standard of price in that... what exactly? One lump of gold is equal to 3 coats? So the move from measure of value to standard of price is from ideal to material?

An ounce of gold is worth 3 coats if the labor time necessary for the production of both is the same. But, I think also, that gold, over time, becomes the socially accepted representative for all commodities, it becomes money.

I guess the measure of value is actual labor time which would be material, not ideal; the standard of price is actual money, so that also would be material, not ideal. I think it moves from material to material.

Personally, I think the ideal part comes in when the discussion turns to profit. The capitalist says that profit comes, magically, from the market. Marx said it is produced by workers who perform labor for which they are not paid.

[ar734]

From what I understand, the first three chapters are the killers, with chapter 3 being the most difficult (no objections on my part there) and that after chapter 3 it's easy sailing.

I would say Marx is never easy sailing. :D

[mikelepore]

The price may go up and down constantly. The exchange value changes only when the manufacturing process changes and therefore the cost of production changes, such as Marx's example of the hand loom for making cloth being replaced by the power loom, which changed the amount of labor that is "socially necessary" per unit of cloth. Therefore the price is a noisy and jittery signal that approximates the value. The price usually doesn't stabilize, and oscillates around the value.

[Broletariat]

The price may go up and down constantly. The exchange value changes only when the manufacturing process changes and therefore the cost of production changes, such as Marx's example of the hand loom for making cloth being replaced by the power loom, which changed the amount of labor that is "socially necessary" per unit of cloth. Therefore the price is a noisy and jittery signal that approximates the value. The price usually doesn't stabilize, and oscillates around the value.

Just a little academic nit-pick. Exchange-value is the proportion at which commodities exchange, I think you meant to say Value in the second sentence.

[ar734]

Just a little academic nit-pick. Exchange-value is the proportion at which commodities exchange, I think you meant to say Value in the second sentence.

I wonder why economists (the socialists) don't just replace exchange-value with price. Nobody really uses use-value any more, they just use utility. Although the theory of marginal utility is complete bs, the word is easier to understand.

As in, the utility of a commodity is the material accumulation of price. Instead of, in Marx, the use-value of a commodity is the material depositary of exchange-value.

[Broletariat]

I wonder why economists (the socialists) don't just replace exchange-value with price. Nobody really uses use-value any more, they just use utility. Although the theory of marginal utility is complete bs, the word is easier to understand.

As in, the utility of a commodity is the material accumulation of price. Instead of, in Marx, the use-value of a commodity is the material depositary of exchange-value.

Because exchange-value is very different from price. Price isn't even the same thing as Value.

[mikelepore]

Just a little academic nit-pick. Exchange-value is the proportion at which commodities exchange, I think you meant to say Value in the second sentence.

Everywhere in Marx, the word "value" without any adjective in front of it refers to the exchange value.