Sure, wages and many prices were sticky at the time of the price
revolution after Columbus invaded America. But a lot of this
stickiness was solved by force (since the "market system" and
capitalist-style property rights had not been well established). More
crucially, I don't think that the magnitude of the stickiness was
enough to explain much of the rise of capitalism in England. Most
importantly, it seemed to me that Charles was suffering from money
illusion.
^^^^
CB; Do you think Marx is suffering from money illusion in his chapter on the
genesis of the industrial capiatlist ?
^^^^
Now, there was a role for the gold in changing W. Europe. Whoever got
the gold first was most likely to benefit. But in most cases, they
didn't.
^^^^^
CB; This seems a self-contradictory claim.
^^^^^
At the time of the 1849 gold rush in California, it usually
wasn't the miners who won (unless they found _a lot_ of gold). Rather,
it was the merchants who controlled scarce goods who won, as prices
rose skyward.
^^^^^
CB; So,in the origin of capitalism was it the merchants or the agricultural
capitalists leading ? Isn't Brenner's thesis specifically opposed to the
merchantile origin thesis ?
^^^^^
Similarly, the direct beneficiaries of the gold (Spain) often didn't
gain much at all. Rather, it was the English, Dutch, and French
merchants who won.
^^^^^
CB; Merchants or aggie-capitalists ?
^^^^
And they had to buy products from the manufacturers
(which truly meant "hand work" at the time). Even they had to pay
rising prices to suppliers of raw materials, who had to pay more for
food. Gains from inflation tend to be transitory.
--
^^^^^
CB: Who were the suppliers of raw materials ?
