Dear Gil
I will take time to look at this post. But one thing stopped
me cold: you write
"2) In anticipation, I note that the passage does not suggest--nor
could it validly suggest in general--that the sum of values is equal
to the sum of commodity prices."
I think in order for you to write this, we must be talking about
two completely different things. This seems to me *exactly*
what this passage not only suggests, but exceedingly validly
so. The wine and the corn must have the same price, in order
to exchange. So the wine costs L45 and the corn L45. The wine
has a price of L45 and a value of L40, the corn has a price
of L45 and a value of L50.
Total value = L40 + L50 = L90
Total price = L45 + L45 = L90
What's the problem?
Is it that you don't think values can be measured in money? In that
case we can do it in hours. Just write 40 hours instead of L40.
Or that the wine is directly bartered for the corn, instead of
being paid for in money?
Since we have C-M-C on both sides of the exchange, there are
two exchanges and hence the loss/gain of L10 is split into
two parts. The wine-seller makes the first L5 from selling the
wine above its value, and another L5 from buying the corn below
its value. But apart from this, I don't understand the difficulty.
I think if we can sort this out we may get to the core of the
matter
Yours faithfully
Bewildered of Longitude 0