Wait, I must've missed somethng: if the M-C-M person is using the commodity he traded with money for to grow more product or value from the commodity, that's bad in some way? (A filmmaker buys a camera to make a film that can be shown with ticket purchases) If someone traded shoes for strawberries, but then planted some of those strawberries to grow more berries, would that also be a bad thing?
The C in the M-C-M is not any commodity. Is labor power. If you buy a strawberry and plant this you are consuming the strawberry, then you can get more money with your work on the plantation. But if you hire someone to plant the strawberry then you are consuming the labor power. In the process of consumption of the labor power you are getting more money then you had putted in without doing any work. That's surplus value production. But there's a lot more into it. The example of bargain between objects don't apply because money is the secret to surplus production. The use value of money is to trade commodities. Money and labor power are two special commodities in marxian philosophy
@@jorgemachado5317 "The C in the M-C-M is not any commodity. Is labor power." It can be any factor of production: Land (factory), labor, capital goods (tools, machinery, raw materials).
@@YashArya01 You are technically right. The issue is that there is a difference between M-C-M and M-C-M'. The last one is where money acts as capital. No other commodity except labor power can produce surplus value. That's why i gave this example. The question was wether any circulation was a "bad" thing. In my answer i tried to make a distinction between money acting like capital (M-C-M') and money acting as consumption in the circulation (M-C-M) That's it
gtilp I’m no expert, but I feel that money by Marx’s definition has to be a commodity, but it is also something with utility that is what we base our markets on. We all agree that money has some value, but from that presupposition, we engage in the market place. We could base our markets on other commodities (water, potatoes, etc.), but money is an abstract concept that we just agree on. I don’t know. I might be wrong. I’m very much a novice in economics
Money is a special commodity in marxian philosophy. Like any other commodity it has an use value and value. The use value of money is trade commodities. But the value is just the cost of circulation. Some marxists are interpreting that money has no function to represent value but only to possibilitate trade between diferent commodities. Money express all the commodities on the market at a given time by equating then in quantitative units. That's how we can know that 2 carrots has the same value than 4 pencils - even if the use values of carrots and pencils are totally diferent things. The other special commodity is labor force which use value is to produce surplus value
You paid $0.6 for the Pepsi, and $0.9 for the convenience of not having to walk to the factory. The same with the wholesaler. You pay for the convenience of having an easy point of purchase. There's nothing to stop you contacting the manufacturer yourself.
With the convenient store analysis, what if it was a not-for-profit merchant/business? The merchant sells to you at a price, but not to make a profit, but at a price that's equitable to both parties. (Equitable not-profit price for him to cover the cost of buying, handling & storing the soda & chips)
the merchants business model requires extra money from M -C -M. they wouldnt cover operating cost, or have any reason to trade in the first place if they didnt make profit.
Time fucking preference. Google it. Merchants pay the producers ahead, because they don't want to deal with the bullshit of distributing and selling it to the final consumer, and they have no problem getting less for it. Trade is never equal. If you were trading the same amount of value for the same amount of value you would gain nothing. You prefer -in other words, value more- what you get than what you give, that's why you trade. Thus, the producer prefers getting a little bit less money by selling it to a 'merchant' instead of risking either getting more or less money by dealing with the bullshit of selling to the final consumer. That's it.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Wait, I must've missed somethng: if the M-C-M person is using the commodity he traded with money for to grow more product or value from the commodity, that's bad in some way? (A filmmaker buys a camera to make a film that can be shown with ticket purchases)
If someone traded shoes for strawberries, but then planted some of those strawberries to grow more berries, would that also be a bad thing?
You are over simplifying the process. Things do not happen in a Vaccuum. Jack and the Beanstalk.
Also, stop upvoting yourself.
Using the camera is consumption.
The C in the M-C-M is not any commodity. Is labor power. If you buy a strawberry and plant this you are consuming the strawberry, then you can get more money with your work on the plantation. But if you hire someone to plant the strawberry then you are consuming the labor power. In the process of consumption of the labor power you are getting more money then you had putted in without doing any work. That's surplus value production. But there's a lot more into it. The example of bargain between objects don't apply because money is the secret to surplus production. The use value of money is to trade commodities. Money and labor power are two special commodities in marxian philosophy
@@jorgemachado5317 "The C in the M-C-M is not any commodity. Is labor power."
It can be any factor of production: Land (factory), labor, capital goods (tools, machinery, raw materials).
@@YashArya01 You are technically right. The issue is that there is a difference between
M-C-M and M-C-M'.
The last one is where money acts as capital. No other commodity except labor power can produce surplus value. That's why i gave this example. The question was wether any circulation was a "bad" thing. In my answer i tried to make a distinction between money acting like capital (M-C-M') and money acting as consumption in the circulation (M-C-M)
That's it
In what way is money not a commodity?
gtilp I’m no expert, but I feel that money by Marx’s definition has to be a commodity, but it is also something with utility that is what we base our markets on. We all agree that money has some value, but from that presupposition, we engage in the market place. We could base our markets on other commodities (water, potatoes, etc.), but money is an abstract concept that we just agree on. I don’t know. I might be wrong. I’m very much a novice in economics
Money is a special commodity in marxian philosophy. Like any other commodity it has an use value and value. The use value of money is trade commodities. But the value is just the cost of circulation. Some marxists are interpreting that money has no function to represent value but only to possibilitate trade between diferent commodities. Money express all the commodities on the market at a given time by equating then in quantitative units. That's how we can know that 2 carrots has the same value than 4 pencils - even if the use values of carrots and pencils are totally diferent things. The other special commodity is labor force which use value is to produce surplus value
You paid $0.6 for the Pepsi, and $0.9 for the convenience of not having to walk to the factory.
The same with the wholesaler. You pay for the convenience of having an easy point of purchase. There's nothing to stop you contacting the manufacturer yourself.
With the convenient store analysis, what if it was a not-for-profit merchant/business? The merchant sells to you at a price, but not to make a profit, but at a price that's equitable to both parties. (Equitable not-profit price for him to cover the cost of buying, handling & storing the soda & chips)
Warren Webber He would die.
the merchants business model requires extra money from M -C -M. they wouldnt cover operating cost, or have any reason to trade in the first place if they didnt make profit.
Time fucking preference. Google it. Merchants pay the producers ahead, because they don't want to deal with the bullshit of distributing and selling it to the final consumer, and they have no problem getting less for it.
Trade is never equal. If you were trading the same amount of value for the same amount of value you would gain nothing. You prefer -in other words, value more- what you get than what you give, that's why you trade. Thus, the producer prefers getting a little bit less money by selling it to a 'merchant' instead of risking either getting more or less money by dealing with the bullshit of selling to the final consumer. That's it.