[ show plain text ]
> I *mostly* agree with Paul C's comments in #2990.
> But I'd emphasise that what's important, in the context which my original
> message was responding to, is his point that the stock of capital is
> "embodied in material objects" -- clearly something that's embodied in
> something else is in some way different from that something, and confusing
> the two will lead to problems.
> >From the way that I've selected Paul's word for quotation, it will be
> apparent that what I'm doubtful about is the "necessity" of capital being
> embodied in material objects -- suppose I sell 100 shares in Microsoft,
> two days while the price falls, then buy 100 Microsoft shares and invest
> difference in Amaxon.com: what's my capital embodied in during the
This is a very important point.
In my opinion there is no capital involved in any of these transactions. All
happening is that titles to property are changing hands at speculative
Capital is no more involved in these transactions than it would be if you
in old postage stamps.
You are confusing your personal wealth with capital which is a rentier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EDT