<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comentarios al libro: CAPITAL VOLUME 2; A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[https://www.biblioeteca.com/biblioeteca.web/titulo/capital-volume-2%3B-a-critique-of-political-economy]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...period of circulation of 25 weeks. If we say in this case that the capital of 500 pounds sterling has been turned over 5 times in the year, it is evident and obvious that this capital of 500 pounds sterling did not serve at all as a productive capital during one-half of each period of turn-over, and that, taking all in all, it performed its function only during one half of the year, while it did not serve at all during the other half. In our illustration, the reserve capital of 500 pounds sterling comes to the rescue during those five periods of circulation, and the turn-over is thus expanded from 2,500 to 5,000 pounds. But now the advanced capital is 1,000 instead of 500 pounds sterling. Hence there are only five turn-overs instead of ten. This is indeed the way in which people count. But when it is said that the capital of 1,000 pounds has been turned over five times in the year, the recollection of the time of circulation disappears in the hollow skulls of the capitalists, and a confused idea is formed that this capital has served continuously in the process of production during the successive five turn-overs. As a matter of fact, if we say that the capital of 1,000 pounds has been turned over five times in a year, we include both the time of circulation and the time of production. For, indeed, if 1,000 pounds sterling had actually been continuously active in the process of production, the product would have to be 10,000 pounds sterling instead of 5,000, according to our assumptions. But in order to have 1,000 pounds sterling continuously in the process of production, 2,000 pounds would have to be advanced. The economists, who as a general rule have nothing clear to say in reference to the mechanism of the turn-over, always overlook this main point, to-w...]]></description>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 06:30:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>es</language>
<copyright>Copyright 202 6BiblioEteca Technologies SL</copyright>

</channel>
</rss>
