-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:54 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Engels on Transition
me:> 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 ?
maybe. What kinds of specifics are you thinking of? Marx can be wrong,
after all.
^^^^^
CB; On the issues in dispute regarding the Brenner bruhaha I'm saying the
same thing as Marx in the chapter on the genesis of the industrial
capitalist, i.e. that money made in the colonies and slavery was a necessary
cause of the rise of wage-labor/capital relations of production in England.
Are you saying that in that Marx suffers from money illusion ? Marx can be
right too.
^^^^^
In general, he ignored general price changes in volume I of CAPITAL,
holding the value of money (the amount of labor needed to produce a
unit of money) constant. Then, price changes are due to changes in
labor productivity and generally downward.
^^^^^
CB: Yea, but what I was discussing when you questioned whether I had money
illusion was the ongoing, years long "Brenner debate" thread, not price
changes. In the Brenner debate, how do you see the money illusion entering
in ? Is there some connection between general price changes and the
primitive accumulation of capitalism ?
^^^^^^
me:
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.
no, it says that the guys who got the gold got the potential to win,
but were most often unable to realize that potential, because the
purchasing power of gold fell.
^^^^^
CB: Were there other instances where the ones who got the gold first did
benefit ? Why do you say the one's who got the gold first were most likely
to benefit ? And then say that they in fact didn't benefit, that there was
an unlikely result ? Was it unusual for the purchasing power of gold to fall
?
^^^^^
me: > 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 ?
I didn't say that the merchants were "leading."
^^^^
CB; Ok in the origin of capitalism was it the merchants or the agricultural
captalists winning ? You said the merchants won.
^^^^^
Merchant capital makes
its profit (according to Karlos)
^^^^
CB: So, here you think that Marx is not wrong, right ?
^^^^
simply by buying low in one place and
selling high in another.
^^^^
CB: Is that always "simple" to do ?
^^^^
(This is _pure_ merchant capital, not a mixed
variety.) The trouble with inflation from a merchant's perspective is
that it raises both the buying price and the selling price, so that
profits stay constant relative to costs.
^^^^^
CB: Thanks.
CB: > Isn't Brenner's thesis specifically opposed to the
merchantile origin thesis ?
yes, as were Smith's and Marx's.
^^^^^
CB: No, Marx's thesis includes merchants. See the chapter on the genesis of
the industrial capitalists, in which the merchant capitalists have to play
an important role in the primitive accumuation because , wasn't it merchants
doing all the seagoing to the colonies and transporting the slaves and booty
from the colonies, as described in Marx's explanation ?
^^^^^
me: > 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 ?
those who had scarce goods.
^^^^^
CB: If the one's with the scarce goods were merchants, then it supports the
merchantile origin of capitalism thesis more.
^^^^
me: > 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 ?
in Europe, mine-owners and farmers.
^^^^^
CB: So, by money illusion you mean gains from inflation. But not all money
gains are inflationary , are they ? If just a few merchants and mine owners
get a lot more money, is that inflationary , necessarily. Might just make
fortunehunters a fortune.
Europeans in Europe, or European merchants , mine-owners and farmers in the
plantations and colonies ?
