13 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2020
    1. But these are mainly aspects of the process of diffusion of profits throughout the various stages of production and of the process of forming a normal level of profits throughout all the industries of a country. Their influence on the formation of the prices of single commodities is relatively unimportant, and their consideration is therefore beyond the scope of this article.

      I am confused here why their influence on single commodities isn't important. Although they may be different following patterns of profit throughout production seems as if it could be valuable in a way to problem solve to cut out parts of ineffective production in order to raise profits.

    2. In it also, in fact, we find that the majority of the circumstances which affect the strength of a monopolist (such as the possession of unique natural resources, legal privileges, the control of a greater or less proportion of the total production, the existence of rival commodities, etc.) exercise their influence essentially by affecting the elasticity of the demand for the monopolised goods.

      I find this interesting, yet quite confusing. If a something is in a monopoly why would they have to worry about elasticity. Wouldn't there only be 1 option for the good which would make me believe there is no rival commodities.

    3. This point made regarding production cost here reminds me of the PPF, by using cost of production and law of returns to figure out the actual amount of money coming in.

  2. Mar 2020
    1. But as to profits, there exists no law which determines their minimum. We cannot say what is the ultimate limit of their decrease. And why cannot we fix that limit? Because, although we can fix the minimum of wages, we cannot fix their maximum. We can only say that, the limits of the working day being given, the maximum of profit corresponds to the physical minimum of wages; and that wages being given, the maximum of profit corresponds to such a prolongation of the working day as is compatible with the physical forces of the labourer.

      This is a very interesting point here in comparing minimum of wages to maximizing profit. Profit will only rise if the wages get smaller, and it seems like by what Marx is saying is in order to maximize profit you have to minimize wages. I would not agree with this simply because there is more to the value of a product or commodity than simply the wages paid to laborers producing the product.

    1. The value of a commodity is determined by the total quantity of labour contained in it.

      Again here, I believe the value of a commodity is determined by much more than just the labour involved in it. Although labor is one of the cost of such commodity, it is far from the only one, costs also included raw materials, rent, and much more.

    2. I disagree here with Marx, i believe total cost of production is what ultimately determines the price of the product, although the price of laborers is involved in the total cost, in order to put a value on something whether it be the value of someones labor or the value of a product it has to account for everything put into it.

  3. Feb 2020
    1. We see then that machines would not rise in price, in consequence of a rise of wages. The manufacturer, however, who in a general rise of wages, can have recourse to a machine which shall not increase the charge of production on his commodity, would enjoy peculiar advantages if he could continue to charge the same price for his goods; but he, as we have already seen, would be obliged to lower the price of his commodities, or capital would flow to his trade till his profits had sunk to the general level. Thus then is the public benefited by machinery: these mute agents are always the produce of much less labour than that which they displace, even when they are of the same money value.

      This small paragraph is one that is tough for me to understand. At what point could the manufacturer see any advantage when it comes to profit. Yes he may sell more goods but if he is forced to pay higher wages but if the producer is producing more of its good wouldn't that drive down the value of good? This is where I begin to understand the public benefit as the price of the particular good would begin falling, but it is hard for me to grasp and benefit of the manufacturer.

    2. If fixed capital be not of a durable nature, it will require a great quantity of labour annually to keep it in its original state of efficiency; but the labour so bestowed may be considered as really expended on the commodity manufactured, which must bear a value in proportion to such labour.

      If fixed capital is not durable is it really fixed? I feel as if fixed capital must come without anymore labour going into it. If a machine is constantly in need of repairs that require several laborers to fix then you are putting more and more cost which would cause fixed capital to increase.

    3. Now it is against this language that I protest. I find that precisely, as in the case of the gold, the cause of the variation between corn and other things, is the smaller quantity of labour necessary to produce it, and therefore, by all just reasoning, I am bound to call the variation of corn and labour a fall in their value, and not a rise in the value of the things with which they are compared. If I have to hire a labourer for a week, and instead of ten shillings I pay him eight, no variation having taken place in the value of money, the labourer can probably obtain more food and necessaries, with his eight shillings, than he before obtained for ten: but this is owing, not to a rise in the real value of his wages, as stated by Adam Smith, and more recently by Mr. Malthus, but to a fall in the value of the things on which his wages are expended, things perfectly distinct; and yet for calling this a fall in the real value of wages, I am told that I adopt new and unusual language, not reconcileable with the true principles of the science. To me it appears that the unusual and, indeed, inconsistent language, is that used by my opponents. Suppose a labourer to be paid a bushel of corn for a week’s work, when the price of corn is 80 s. per quarter, and that he is paid a bushel and a quarter when the price falls to 40

      I find this point to be particularly interesting because it is hard to imagine a time in which real wages will decrease as well as the price of goods. They are discussing a time of deflation where the value of the goods is worth less therefore you are getting more of it for more labor, but you are still not making the same value of goods. In this instance originally he was getting one bushel which was valued at 80$ and now is getting a bushel and a half even though the bushel is only worth 40$ now. Therefore his real wage has decreased.

    1. The quantity of money, on the contrary, must in every country naturally increase as the value of the annual produce increases. The value of the consumable goods annually circulated within the society being greater will require a greater quantity of money to circulate them. A part of the increased produce, therefore, will naturally be employed in purchasing, wherever it is to be had, the additional quantity of gold and silver necessary for circulating the rest. The increase of those metals will in this case be the effect, not the cause, of the public prosperity. Gold and silver are purchased every-where in the same manner. The food, clothing, and lodging, the revenue and maintenance of all those whose labour or stock is employed in bringing them from the mine to the market, is the price paid for them in Peru as well as in England. The country which has this price to pay will never be long without the quantity of those metals which it has occasion for; and no country will ever long retain a quantity which it has no occasion for.

      I really enjoyed this paragraph as I feel strongly on the subject. Year to year the quantity of money must increase, this insures that producers of good will get more for their good as the value of other goods rises. To me this seems to be comparable to what we call today Inflation. As the value of gold and silver rises and the cost of living rises your good that you produce must also rise in value in order to maintain your current lifestyle.

    2. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population. If the reward *40 should at any time be less than what was requisite for this purpose, the deficiency of hands would soon raise it; and if it should at any time be more, their excessive multiplication would soon lower it to this necessary rate. The market would be so much under-stocked with labour in the one case, and so much over-stocked in the other, as would soon force back its price to that proper rate which the circumstances of the society required. It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men; quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the different countries of the world, in North America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.

      The statement made her seems to be one that was a strong belief of the lower class. They believed that as population was increasing the demand for their good in which they produced would increase therefore they would need more people to help produce more goods. This meant many of these laborers were having several children in order to keep up with high demands of goods.

    3. The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured *53 by the quantity of labour which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.

      I feel really strongly about this statement for a couple of reasons. I believe that too many people think their goods or services are more valuable than they actually are. To many people place a higher value on their own goods than comparing to the exact same good produced by someone else. In a fair market the real value of good will be the price at which they sell for, and if product isn't selling it could be because you have not found the price in which consumers and producers are willing to sell and purchase at.

  4. Jan 2020
  5. inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net
    1. stride

      I found section 5 to be very interesting, many college student do not take an economics class in general. I believe the point regarding 18 year olds being able to vote while having little to no knowledge on economics is strong. I had never thought about voting in this way, as the general thought is voters can simply watch debates and hear candidates speak, but without any prior knowledge on the subject how can these speeches be helpful? A general HET class would allow these young voters to develop an understanding of some of the economic standpoints of our candidates.