As I have set out elsewhere, this can be seen in the real world with actual inflation both with asset prices and commodity prices. If A has a house whose market price is £100,000, and B has a house similarly priced, but A prefers B's house and vice versa, they could just swap houses. Each “buys” the others house with their own house without any need to resort to money or money prices. In which case, the money price becomes, itself, irrelevant other than for the purpose of recording the transaction in legal documents etc. So, for example, A could agree with B that the price of their houses is £50,000, or £200,000, or £1 million. It would not change the actual value of their respective houses or the fact that they can still exchange one for the other.
In practice, what we have here is a purely nominal price, and exchange based on credit. In property and other asset price bubbles this is part of what happens. Collectively, the owners of these assets agree – not, of course, as a result of some conscious agreement between them, like that of A and B above – that the current “value” of their assets is higher than it was. So long as one group of owners of shares, bonds, land, property, art, wine, vinyl records, Bitcoin etc., can sell them at a higher price, they, then, obtain the currency/credit to buy different assets at these higher prices from some other group of owners of such assets, and so on. The more such an inflation of these asset prices continues like this, the more the owners of those assets, both individually and collectively, are confirmed in their belief that the value of their assets has risen, even though all that has happened is a paper transaction that has changed the price labels.
Similarly, as I set out a while ago, in an economy based purely on electronic payments rather than currency circulation, the same could apply, because the velocity of circulation becomes infinite. If A supplies a commodity with a value of 10 hours labour to B, and vice versa, it does not matter what price tag is put on this value of 10 hours labour. It can as easily be £100 as £10. B transfers, electronically, either £100 or £10 into A's account, whilst A transfers the same amount back into B's account, simultaneously. In Capital II, Marx describes this same process in relation to commercial credit transactions between capitals, so that the only currency required is that to cover any balance after these various transactions have been netted off. As I described, this is what would be happening where such credit transactions between buyers and sellers effectively means the velocity of circulation tends towards infinity, and so the standard of prices tends towards zero.
No comments:
Post a Comment