The seven basic forms of commodity trade can be summarised as follows:
M-C (an act of purchase: a sum of money purchases a commodity, or “money is changed into a commodity”)[16]
C-M (an act of sale: a commodity is sold for money)[17]
M-M’ (a sum of money is lent out at interest to obtain more money, or, one currency or financial claim is traded for another; “money begets money“)[18]
C-C’ (countertrade, in which a commodity trades directly for a different commodity, with money possibly being used as an accounting referent, for example, food for oil, or weapons for diamonds)
C-M-C’(a commodity is sold for money, which buys another, different commodity with an equal or higher value)
M-C-M’(money is used to buy a commodity which is resold to obtain a larger sum of money)[19]
M-C…P…-C’-M’ (money buysmeans of productionandlabour powerused in production to create a new commodity, which is sold for more money than the original outlay; “the circular course of capital”)[20]
The fact that the substance of the exchange-value is something utterly different from and independent of the physical-sensual existence of the commodity or its reality as ause-valueis revealed immediately by its exchange relationship. For this is characterized precisely by theabstractionfrom theuse-value.As far as the exchange-value is concerned, one commodity is, after all, quite as good as every other, provided it is present in the correct proportion.
Hence, commodities are first of all simply to be considered asvalues,independent of their exchange-relationship or from theform,in which theyappear as exchange-values.
Commodities as objects of use or goods are corporeally different things. Their reality asvaluesforms, on the other hand, theirunity.This unity does not arise out of nature but out of society. The common social substance which merely manifests itself differently in different use-values, is –labour.
Commodities as values are nothing butcrystallized labour.The unit of measurement of labour itself is thesimple average-labour,the character of which varies admittedly in different lands and cultural epochs, but is given for a particular society. More complex labour counts merely as simple labourto an exponentor ratherto a multiple,so that a smaller quantum of complex labour is equal to a larger quantum of simple labour, for example. Preciselyhowthis reduction is to be controlled is not relevant here.Thatthis reduction is constantly occurring is revealed by experience. A commodity may be the product of the most complex labour. Itsvalueequates it to the product of simple labour and therefore represents on its own merely a definite quantum of simple labour.
Marx eliminates his simplifying assumption of Volume I that in capitalism commodities tend to exchange according to their ‘values’ (i.e., labor-values). Without Volume III it is not possible to have the complete picture of Marx’s theory of capitalism and, in particular, his theory that commodities exchanged according to their ‘production prices’, which deviated systematically from their ‘values’, or according to ‘modified prices of production’ if capitalists had to pay rent to landowners.
For Marx, commodities tended to exchange according to their ‘values’ only in non-capitalist (or ‘simple’) commodity production in which there is no wage labor (only independent producers) and land is freely available. Nevertheless, he used his sophisticated labor theory of ‘value’ for the construction of his theory ofsurplus-value(which was his theory of exploitation). This was the ‘esoteric’ part of his theory, which underlaid the ‘exoteric’ part that explained equilibrium prices, wages, and rents. The global surplus-value produced was for him the foundation for profits on capital and rents on land. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk considered the labor theory of value fallacious, since it could only be valid in special cases. For example, he argued against Johann Karl Rodbertus that a nugget of gold that falls to earth embedded in a meteorite, and thus not having been produced by labor, would still fall within the purview of economic science.
For example, as a problem in identification, how is the commodity space defined by vacancy rate related to property ownership, land speculation, and redlining. The irony of homelessness in the US should not be lost on anyone.
The data on this map comes from Census.gov. A housing unit is defined as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms or a single room that is occupied (or, if vacant, intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. The data includes the following types of vacancy: For rent, rented (not occupied), for sale, sold (not occupied) and other vacant. Housing units that are temporarily vacant/occupied (i.e., For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use or for migrant workers) are not included in the vacancy rate. landgeist.com/…
The major difference between buying and selling securities and commodities lies in what is being sold. Purchasing stock buys a share in a corporation’s ownership and control. Purchasing commodities, on the other hand, is to buy goods themselves before they actually exist. The buyer agrees to purchase so many units of a good at a set price to be delivered much later.
“A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production” (Marx 45).
More simply put, a worker produces an object (i.e. fabric, shoes, plastic, houses, etc.) that, despite the investment of their personal labor, remains as the boss’s property. This simple, yet crucial fact turns the object into merchandise, or a commodity. The boss who possesses wealth and commodities, is, for Marx, the embodiment of the bourgeois; and the worker thus becomes the embodiment of the proletariat. More important, however, is that the bourgeois, in possessing the capital, maintains control over the use and exchange of those commodities. With this in mind, Marx continues his discussion of commodity by defining use-value and exchange-value. (See alsoGlobalism and Transnationalism,The Spice Trade in India,Communism in India)
On March 6, 2018, a federal judge upheld the notion that cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are commodities and can therefore be regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Since 2015, the CFTC has claimed that cryptocurrencies were commodities. However, this is the first time a federal judge had confirmed this position.
[…]
At issue in the case was whether the CFTC had the jurisdiction to regulate cryptocurrency as a commodity in the absence of federal level rules, and whether the law permitted the CFTC to “exercise its jurisdiction over fraud that does not directly involve the sale of futures or derivative contracts,” according to the court filings.
In both instances, Judge Weinstein answered yes, implying the case can be brought against the defendant and that the CFTC had jurisdiction over cryptocurrency related matters.
The CFTC isn’t the only regulator that claims oversight over the cryptocurrency business. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has noted that it views virtual currencies as securities, and has set up a whole “Cyber Unit” to tackle fraudulent initial coin offerings (ICOs).
Georgists have observed that privately created wealth is socialized via the tax system (e.g., throughincomeandsales tax), while socially created wealth in land values are privatized in the price of land titles and bank mortgages. The opposite would be the case if land rents replaced taxes on labor as the main source ofpublic revenue; socially created wealth would become available for use by the community, while the fruits of labor would remain private.[22]
According to Georgists, a land value tax can be considered a user fee instead of a tax, since it is related to the market value of socially created locational advantage, the privilege to exclude others from locations. Assets consisting of commodified privilege can be considered as wealth since they have exchange value, similar totaxi medallions.[23][failed verification]A land value tax, charging fees for exclusive use of land, as a means of raising public revenue is also aprogressive taxtending to reduceeconomic inequality,[13][14]since it applies entirely to ownership of valuable land, which is correlated with income,[24]and there is generally no means by which landlords can shift thetax burdenonto tenants or laborers. Landlords are unable to pass the tax on to tenants because thesupply and demandof rented land is unchanged. Because the supply of land is perfectlyinelastic, land rents depend on what tenants are prepared to pay, rather than on the expenses of landlords, and so the tax cannot be passed on to tenants.[25]
Henry George shared the goal of modern Georgists to socialize or dismantle rent from all forms of land monopoly and legal privilege. However, George emphasized mainly his preferred policy known asland value tax, which targeted a particular form of unearned income known asground rent. George emphasized ground-rent because basic locations were more valuable than other monopolies and everybody needed locations to survive, which he contrasted with the less significant streetcar and telegraph monopolies, which George also criticized. George likened the problem to a laborer traveling home who is waylaid by a series of highway robbers along the way, each who demand a small portion of the traveler’s wages, and finally at the very end of the road waits a robber who demands all that the traveler has left. George reasoned that it made little difference to challenge the series of small robbers when the final robber remained to demand all that the common laborer had left.[36]George predicted that over time technological advancements would increase the frequency and importance of lesser monopolies, yet he expected that ground rent would remain dominant.[37]George even predicted that ground-rents would rise faster than wages and income to capital, a prediction that modern analysis has shown to be plausible, since the supply of land is fixed.[38]
Spatial rent is still the primary emphasis of Georgists because of its large value and the known diseconomies of misused land. However, there are other sources of rent that are theoretically analogous to ground-rent and are debated topics of Georgists. The following are some sources of economic rent.[39][40][41]
Where free competition is impossible, such as telegraphs, water, gas, and transportation, George wrote, “[S]uch business becomes a proper social function, which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned.” Georgists were divided by this question ofnatural monopoliesand often favored public ownership only of the rents from commonrights-of-way, rather than public ownership of utility companies themselves.[31]
For 8,000 years, people in China have known the value of garlic. Today, while still central to Chinese cuisine and traditional medicine, rarely are the pungent bulbs used in property deals.But developers in some parts of China have in recent weeks promised to accept stocks of garlic — as well as watermelons, wheat and barley — as down payments from farmers on new apartments. The food-for-property barter deals reflect increasing desperation among real estate developers after a sharp fall in the industry caused by Covid-19, central government policies and an economic slowdown. Provincial officials and real estate developers had been relying on a wave of 100mn urban migrants over the next decade. The fallout from sweeping lockdowns has worsened an already-bleak outlook for the property market, especially in the smaller cities closer to poor rural areas. “It’s the third year of Covid and many people are worn out, unemployed or underemployed, and have drained their savings to a level at which they now have to reduce their spending,” said Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura. Over the past six months, the People’s Bank of China, the central bank, has relaxed lending restrictions and cut mortgage rates while the finance ministry put on ice plans to expand property tax trials. Officials are also rolling out a system in which households receive vouchers for future home purchases if they agree to have their properties demolished. This is targeted mostly at tier-3 cities of 3mn people or fewer and tier-2 cities of 3mn-15mn.In some areas, city officials also eased restrictions on second home purchases, crossing one of Beijing’s “red lines” that until recently authorities were careful to obey. Despite these efforts, many poorer citizens are not convinced to invest. The reluctance is not isolated to garlic growers in Henan province and extends beyond the tier-3 cities into tier-2 cities, which are typically wealthier.
Ocean geoengineering to suck carbon out of the atmosphere is controversial but at some point we’ll have to weigh the risks against those posed by unchecked climate change https://t.co/HDslYR1uo0
“Agorism’s emphasis on direct action is relevant to environmentalism — rather than wait for political action and waste precious time, we must begin acting now.” – @MorpheusRagehttps://t.co/5PHjUgO3BN
— Center For A Stateless Society (@c4ssdotorg) July 1, 2022
x
Johnson is a disgrace, but the archaic system itself created this chaos. As power plays consume westminster, the climate crisis rages on.
That’s why we desperately need a democratic Citizens Assembly to safeguard our future. https://t.co/pzaw32YC21
— Extinction Rebellion UK 🌍 (@XRebellionUK) July 7, 2022
x
“The United States is the only major nation in which an authoritarian right-wing party,” writes @paulkrugman, “has the ability to block actions that might prevent climate catastrophe.” https://t.co/8FGXxSnBpm
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) July 7, 2022
Electric sheep:
x
Homeowners around the world are swapping real grass for artificial turf as climate change forever alters what a normal yard looks and smells like https://t.co/IEj1fP7B1Z
Coal plants being reactivated are like Krugman’s driver:
x
Old joke about the motorist who runs over a pedestrian, then tries to fix the mistake by backing up — and runs over the pedestrian a second time. I fear that something like that may be about to happen in economic policy. https://t.co/Z9wvHJHgwm
In the philosophy of space and time, the “territory” is, of course, the ontology of space and time (i.e., its nature or being), whereas the principal “map” is the substantivalism (or absolutism) versus relationism dichotomy.
