Alright I read the whole thing, nowhere do I see a justification of the assumption that total value must remain constant apart from some loose conjecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
All this rests on the observation that no new value can be created in the market. Obviously the market has expanded by leaps and abounds since the time where capitalism per se was bounded to Birmingham and neighboring regions, but this expansion just means that the purchasing power has been spread as capitalism absorbs more markets, not that there was less purchasing power than there is today.
|
In 1400 if I wanted to buy 7 million pigs I couldn't do that. Today a person potentially could, and then so could someone else. Less purchasing power right there.
Marx's example about silk.
t=0
Assume the following constants:
Units of silk = N
Units of silver = n
Denote variables:
Price of silk = P
Price of silver = p
Total market value = NP + np
silk/silver relative value = P/p
t=1
Increment P by i>0
Total market value = N(P+i) + np > NP + np
silk/silver relative value = (P+i)/p > P/p
Obviously this extends to any number of commodities and making the units available into variables would do nothing to help model a constant total value.
So you see while it follows that your units of silver will now earn you less units of silk, that total value remains constant seems to come out of nowhere and is not required for the conclusion. While everyones 'capital' as a fraction of total capital must always add together to make 1, this is a tautology.