Since man has needs, commerce arises. These needs are to eat, dress, protect oneself, whether from inclement weather or others. When the man realized that not everything he had within his reach was enough, he saw a way to meet that need through another, he as if he had the access to what he needed, this was called "barter.
From there we can say that trade appeared, from that moment man left to establish different forms of trade. By establishing different forms of commerce, he began to reflect, to study himself and how to improve through it. Thus, characters emerged that would mark history with their different contributions "especially to the economy."
THE GREEKS AND THE FEUDAL ECONOMY.
The Greeks, some of the initiators who try to discover the functioning of the economy, philosophers like Hesiod, established one of the main problems that man has always had and that is scarcity, the establishment very much with his beliefs that this scarcity was not due to desire. and varied requirement that people had, but it was a curse on humanity to the irresponsible opening of Pandora's chest.
This does not show more than the concern that man was beginning to have regarding his own economy and the lack of an economic system that could regulate this shortage. Because the people of that time did not understand about this, they had a normal self-consumption, since they did not worry in the least that what they consumed today could end tomorrow, speaking of course about that of indispensable necessity.
Aristotle also contributes something to economic development and as a consequence to trade, which is that barter reflects the coverage of needs without incurring economic gain. It is clear that the trick was a solution to the problem of scarcity that existed at that time and did not depend on a "God" but rather on the behavior of man about the consumption of things. Today we simply could not make a living from barter since society has changed in all aspects, in demographics, needs, and the way we see things.
This is what I mean by the interests involved in terms of the economic situation of each one, as an individual or member of a family, company or economic system in which we are immersed. Now that free exchange of goods and services occurs through currency, "a metal that is coveted by many and obtained largely by few" with economic policies that try to reach a balance like man in all aspects, but where that balance becomes controversial since when it leans in favor of some, it unprotects others.
From there to the establishment of political laws, theories, in short, a myriad of arguments of which some understand and others, like their servant, try to understand. But this will change to the extent that we as individuals change before the same changes that society, proposes and forces. For this reason, all this that seems like a thread without reason, lost and wrapped around it, is necessary for us to understand it so that we don't end up wrapping ourselves around it, without an explanation of what happened.
The need to create something that regulates trade, go the economy of each society, is necessary since a society without control in any aspect of it causes conflicts in terms of harmony and balance in certain situations.
The feudal economy is an important part in the development of the same economy, it began to divide society and therefore power such as the division of groups of deer, landowners, royalty and the clergy. The clergy is an important part of regulation in the internal economy as well as the external trade that revolves around it.
On the other hand, the power acquired by the landowners, the royalty and the powerful groups was thanks to an inherited power that only they and for theirs were the benefits, this today is still evident in the matter of power as a mere example we have here in Mexico, a party which only inherited power, but hey, a server will not enter into controversy in this, since it is an issue that I will not comment on. Returning to the church in the stage of the feudal economy, this was the largest landowner and in fact it was the one who administered the land, and the one who knew best how to do it.
This division of class groups and the way in which the economy was administered aroused the curiosity of some, as was the case of “Saint Thomas Aquinas”, a singular character who compared the laws of God with the form of the prevailing economic system. He mentioned how money when it was acquired through an inordinate ambition of man, that enrichment was not justified but when it was used for charity alone it was justified.
The role that the Church had to play in those days was transcendental, and to whom it was who established some prices and who should be granted the right to the land, I can say that an organism that regulates trade and the economy is always important since this way You will have a certain control over this and thus not be affected by others, be it individuals, families, countries etc.
However, this control can harm if it is being malicious, an example of this, the Church knew how far the deer could go, since they were the workforce that was exploited.
And it was they who were subject to the will of the Church, having them like bandaged horses, knowing how to lead them and the treatment they should give them. Giving them that ecclesiastical preparation they had them where they wanted, since education was for some and they used God as a mere pretext, that if they did not fulfill their mandates they would go to hell.
"It is there where the feudal economy was based" essential pillar of education "now these days and people are not so naive and education to which it is open to all, is of vital importance for today's society, and for the growth of it.
These same changes that society is taking, make guidelines for its own transformation, evolution as some say and sometimes delay for others, since the changes that occur in it are questionable either in its time, or with the passage of time.
The cost of life itself is giving us these guidelines, since those of us who are better prepared for these changes, the better we will be able to move forward, that technology that is changing those guidelines, is becoming an integral part of man's life as well as the progress that go through it, and of course, man never wants delay, that delay in which he interprets it in his pocket, in the needs he has, in his macroeconomic policies, where he may not be technologically prepared, or not have an economic system that allows you to face those challenges.
One thing that countries should be sure of when signing a trade agreement is that they must face various commitments, and think that if their people will be able to with this package, their system, their demographics, their agricultural structure. You should analyze whether these types of trade agreements will benefit you or end up harming you, since if so, it will be convenient not to establish it, or even better to negotiate it with the participating countries of that treaty.
Taking into account clearly that those agreements reached in the negotiation must be respected, since we are the ones who pay for that. But we must not forget that we, as signatory countries, must also respect it, and prepare our country for these changes. This is something that should concern us all, that our representatives become aware that it is not they who sign but an entire country, and therefore prepare it.
Since the obstacles that we could find at the time of delivering our products, is that they do not meet the specifications as we had agreed with the other countries. All this makes us reflect, firstly, how we must have a certain degree of technology in our country, so that we can compete abroad, that our economic policies are flexible enough to give other countries some comfort to establish their products in our country.
Undoubtedly, technology plays an important role in the development of the country, as I had already mentioned before, since the economy of our country depends to a certain extent on it. Because the economy in our days is a game in which everyone wants to win and nobody wants to get out without losing, These economic policies are the rules of the game that we impose when importing and those that are imposed on us when exporting, the way we use them is the way we can win.
This is where mercantilism comes in, which recommends to the rulers the best political measures that could enrich the country and themselves, but as I had already mentioned, the establishment of these economic policies favor some and unprotect others.
MERCANTILISM
In Mercantilism that protection is established for domestic production and weakening the protectionism of other countries.
Since to know a country correctly we must analyze its needs, consider with an anatomical vision the economy of a country as established by William Petty, which highlights the economic importance of the division of labor. I anticipate ideas from the classics such as the division of labor greatly favored as well as measuring value on the basis of labor.
The protectionism established by the Mercantilists towards their country, through military and political power, these aspects gave rise to the economic and social progress of European life that culminated in the birth of nationalities. The only interest then was the lucrative aspect, the essential purpose of this type of trade through these channels was to retain the merchandise, not to export and to import, since the purpose was focused on achieving the supply of merchandise as much as possible.
Even in this sense, the export of raw materials is allowed if in exchange manufactures were reimported, Heckscher has described this attitude as "hunger for merchandise"
Then then, with the events that were happening and the establishment of these measures, they realized that the policy they were carrying out did not favor them, a third stage of mercantilist policy enters here, they spoke in general for the shortage, since production was destined abroad for profit, this policy was predominantly oriented towards a producer interest, in which case, the danger consisted in producing goods that were not sold, for this reason Heckscher characterizes it with the title of "fear of goods".
This commercialism as a current of thought was a consequence of the commercial movement and at the same time it helped to promote it. Emile James affirms that the mercantilists were, to a greater or lesser degree, indirect disciples of Machiavelli in desiring in terms of the economic organization of the state what it had done in relation to political organization. The focus of the Mercantilists' thinking was the State and not morality, as had happened during the Middle Ages.
Not the individual and the merchandise, as happened years later with the classical school, but precious metals. Those metals which were highly appreciated in their time, but with them the classics like Adam Smith would draw some important conclusions, which I will later question.
Starting from the principle that economic activity is a means, not to satisfy needs, but to strengthen the State, it is obvious that a policy that tended to stink support for a nationalist philosophy, and the main means to achieve that goal, was to achieve a favorable trade balance.
They proposed a system of greater economic freedom among the regions of each country that would strengthen the national unity in the economic and political sphere. With the constitution and strengthening of the nationalities through the merger of several fiefdoms, the expansion of the national market began, and when it was consolidated, the step was taken towards the monopoly of foreign trade and the colonization of the lands conquered overseas and with it the opening and development of the international market.
There are many differences as to how to consider mercantilism, what is clear is that it was a certain stage, different in each country and in each era, during which its most prominent representatives sustained a diversity of opinions, defending even contradictory principles. All this, to the extent that it was true, is explained that they lacked an economic theory that would give unity to their ideas.
The confusion was increased by the fact that some mercantilist writers expressed their ideas in an interested way, because they were merchants or represented commercial interests. It is important to show that avarice from which man has never been able to get rid of, what is evident is that in the absence of a congruent system of ideas there was only an attitude towards a common purpose; Obtain metal prices through the export surplus. It is judged that among the mercantilists, considering the set of their ideas, there was rather unity of thought, political than economic.
But it should not be forgotten that the ideas of mercantilism served as a breeding ground for liberalism that later reached its peak in classical economics. The aggressiveness and conflict with the foreigner is opposed by solidarity and cooperation within the country. Contrary to what happens between nations, for many mercantilists, excluding notable exceptions that we will see later, within the same country private interest and collective interest are not in conflict. The enrichment of one individual is not an obstacle to the enrichment of others. On the contrary, individual prosperity can extend without limitation within national borders. The methods of success can be copied, and through copying they become generalized. So,We find in the mercantilists an elementary conception of economic solidarity.
But why is money synonymous with wealth? The answer of the first mercantilist authors is simple: money is wealth because it is purchasing power. This is what Davanzati concludes, for example: "All men desire all the gold possible to acquire all things, to satisfy all their desires and needs, and in short to be happy", 1588. Hence, we think that they are goods, and not money, what constitutes true wealth is only a step, which some would take several years later.
Money, or precious metals, have undoubted advantages. For example, while most goods are perishable and difficult to store, precious metals are durable, high-value, and divisible, all of which make them suitable for making payments and for the preservation of wealth. In all this reasoning there is the explicit recognition of the three classic functions of money: unit of account, instrument of exchange and value reserve; It is precisely the second and fundamentally the third of these functions that allow us to approximate until confusing money and wealth in the same.
The economic history of Europe in the 16th century is marked, at the same time, by the entry of large quantities of gold and silver from the New World, (That Mexican does not remember this) and by the sustained increase in prices. Jean Bodin deserves the credit of having related both phenomena for the first time and, more specifically, of having identified the first as the cause of the second. At the dawn of the 16th century, for obvious reasons, price increases occurred first in Spain and over time they will be noticed in other parts of Europe
All this coincides with another important fact: many currencies circulate in Europe. This will serve to complicate the diagnosis of the true causes of inflation; A problem on which one of the first economic controversies, of the Mercantilists, will focus.
Above all, for the mercantilists, the abundance of money has an undoubted advantage: it allows the interest rate to be lowered. The arguments are clearly set out in the work of T. Culpeper (1578-1662) and particularly his Traite Contre L'Usure (1621. When the interest rate is high, the more fortunate merchants leave, since for them it is safer and more profitable to lend money than to go directly into business.
Young and indebted businessmen are driven out of business, or because most of their profits only serve to service the loans. In the same way, and this is the most important thing for Culpeper, agricultural investments decrease and the value of the land falls sharply. The interest rate is the minimum return required by the investment; If this minimum is too high, many projects will become unprofitable and will be abandoned; while, for the same reason, the capital already committed will be withdrawn. Giving up business becomes more interesting than going into it; As investment is less and less profitable, there is a risk that credits end up financing consumer spending to a greater extent.
This does not sound familiar to us, as some policies applied by our government towards the support of some of the sectors of society, where the credits provided to them to the farmers are financed by those expenses, those that they could have, but this support is sometimes insufficient, but it is important to note that at a macroeconomic level, these supports are important, since the government has to subsidize Mexican products so that they can be established more easily.
The Mercantilists advised the best way to establish the first economic systems, but who made the decisions were the rulers, so in the end it was they who made the decision to carry them out or not. Mercantilists do not understand wealth as well-being or how to improve living standards from subsidies, rather what it is about is to build and increase wealth. Hence, the two main themes of mercantilism are precisely money and trade balance.
But it is clear that Mercantilism served as support to liberalism that reached its peak in classical economics. Force is the best guarantee of success for individual interests, foreign trade only prospers when the prince's army protects the merchant, and when, eventually, colonial expansion and war open up new markets. Similarly, internal trade only develops when civil peace prevails and private property is protected.
The thinking of the Mercantilists is the way to achieve a favorable trade balance, all their ideas and suggestions started and at the same time ended in this endeavor, they proposed that the State intervene to restrict imports and promote exports.
When they realized that they had a large, laborious and low-wage population, because in this way the country in question obtained an abundant manufacturing production, achieved at low costs that would facilitate the export of articles with a certain economic density.
They mentioned that poverty was a stimulus to industry. They advised the work of children in such a way that the individual as soon as her physical possibilities allowed her to be incorporated into production. In their opinion, they thought that a king was based on the magnitude of his people and that the wealth of a city or nation consisted of the number of its inhabitants, since the best possession he could have was the hand of man.
And from this, in my opinion, many countries have used for their growth, since a country is not forged only by rulers but by the people. The working class has a lot to do with the welfare of their country, since its stability will depend on it, both internally and externally.
The Mercantilists considered that the gain from foreign trade began to be measured by the surplus of the volume of exported labor over that incorporated into imports.
THE PHYSIOCRATS.
In the middle of the 18th century, a group of French intellectuals proposed a coherent scheme of the functioning of the economic system, the tableau economique. This group establishes that wealth circulates between three social groups, “the productive class (the farmers), the sterile class (the artisans and merchants) and the owners (the nobility, the clergy and the officials.
They propose that the State should maintain this natural environment through three rules: the right to property, economic freedom (laissez faire, laissez passer) and security in the enjoyment of those rights and freedoms.
Quesnay, its main representative, proposed that the circulation of wealth between social groups was something similar to blood circulation, this is not unusual coming from someone who studied medicine.
He explained from his singular point of view that wealth was distributed to the sterile class in payment of the manufactured goods they acquire. This could be a bit confusing the way they explained the forms of wealth distribution. Trying to dismember a system, analyze it and see how it affects and benefits is to stop anyone thinking. This is still taking place today in the establishment of the best macroeconomic policies.
For example, fiscal policy uses the instruments of public spending, public income (basically taxes) as well as financing the difference between the two, that is, the public deficit. The effectiveness of macroeconomic policies depends on the exchange rate regime and the degree of capital mobility. The type of economy that the country establishes compared to other countries will also depend on this, that is, having an open or closed economy, like the one that Mexico had some time ago.
The same economy taught us that the establishment of a closed policy is impossible in these times. Since our economy no longer depends one hundred percent on us. Because now with the establishment of a globalized economy, Mexico depends on the behavior of other currencies. why?.
I will give an example, we as people have needs which will be covered when buying or acquiring what we need, when buying from the grocer of the store, he receives an income for the merchandise purchased by us, and that income that he receives he will use. for other things, for the very subsistence of the store for saying something.
Now, if we always buy from him, he will start to have that income as a fixed income, but you never know when the client will decide to go to another establishment, there come the facilities that he offers us as clients to continue acquiring his products.
Well, the same happens in trade at the international level, countries provide facilities in their trade agreements, so that both parties win, and so that their economy is favored. Of course, this interaction of benefits with respect to trade agreements is something that is personally discussed, because the more developed countries will always have better opportunities than the developing countries, from here, I start to say that The theories established by well-known personalities such as members of the classical school were right in the matter that countries should formulate principles and policies on problems related to economic development, but whose real objective, diffusely explained, is to base international exchange not on equality but on preference.
Because in the end it is what we seek as a country, that individual benefit, which is why this globalization is a "group benefit" when in reality individual benefit is sought.
I will now proceed to explain how the classical school approaches its theories, to the stage in which its characters saw society and the way the economy acted and how much of what they said today continues to take place.
CLASSIC SCHOOL
Regarding the specific influence in economic matters, the English classics received the set of ideas from the mercantilists and the French physiocrats, which served Adam Smith, from their point of view, in the elaboration of his book "The wealth of the nations ”where he made a systematic synthesis of what has already been established in previous paragraphs, in addition to establishing contributions of his genius, and time in which he was.
In the course of half a century, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, which I will delve into later, elaborated the first theory of international trade, as a discipline somewhat independent of economics and governed by their own discipline, as it is independent of economics and governed by its own principles that enriched political economy itself.
If Smith started it, Ricardo gave it its essential content and Mill left the classical theory of international trade fundamentally formulated. Smith plays a momentous role, due to many new ideas about economics and international trade. These same ideas inspired men like Marx and represented both the starting point of economic theories of marginal utility.
His theory of value is more concrete and consistent, they are Smith's hesitations; the theory of land rent, precise and clear; his theory that set the standard in the way of seeing trade, “the theory of comparative costs and its contributions to monetary theory, among other things of consideration and full debate, of which one is still being discussed today..
The most important theses of the classics and that contrasted with the prevailing mercantilist ideas until the beginning of the 19th century were these:
1.- They placed individual selfishness as the driving force behind economic activity, replacing the intervention of the State, thus sustaining an individualistic and anti-mercantile philosophy; they limited the activities of the State to the aspects of internal justice and external protection, and to certain activities of a general nature in education and public works. This would mark a new economic model in the life of the countries by leaving the State aside and imposing its own and the best rules on individuals.
2.- They advised free trade between countries and free competition internally, as each one worked in pursuit of their own interest, contributed to the public interest and promoted this even though it was not part of their purposes. As a result, monopolies had to be replaced by freedom of enterprise in domestic and foreign trade.
3.- They attributed to work being the only factor that generated economic values, unlike the mercantilists, who did not approach the subject with interest. The classics gave exclusivity to work as a creator of the economic values that would transform their time.
4.- They focused their attention on the analysis of the merchandise, relegating precious metals to their specific functions: serving as a measure of values, a medium of exchange, an instrument of circulation and as a unit of account.
The classics replaced it with the criterion of attributing to money a neutral function, both in the productive and financial spheres. With these approaches, they developed a theory of international trade based on scientific principles, such as the advantages derived from the international division of labor.
Smith presents the first theory of the advantages of international trade as an integral chapter of political economy. Adam Smith considers capitalism as the natural state of social relations. Smith states that work increases wealth, because it increases the skill of the workforce, saves time and allows the use of mechanical devices.
The search to satisfy one's own interest will benefit all of society and will be limited by one's own interest in others. In other words, a clear personal benefit is sought, and to the extent that we are favored, society will also be favored. The right goods would be produced at the right prices and the community as a whole would obtain the maximum wealth possible as long as free competition prevailed.
Smith said in these words, “but it is only for his own benefit that a man employs his capital in support of industry; therefore, he will always strive to use it in the industry whose product tends to be of greater value or to exchange it for the greatest possible amount of money or other goods. ”In this, as in many other cases, he is guided by an invisible hand to achieve an end that was not part of their intention. And it is not the worst for society that this has been. In seeking his own interest, man often favors that of society better than when he really wants to.
They considered that the growth phase would end in a stationary state in which workers would receive as wages the amount strictly necessary for their subsistence. And we can say that workers currently receive only what is strictly necessary, due to their faculties and knowledge that they have, it is clear to mention that the economy of each country is different, because its budget is counted for carrying out works, infrastructures, depending on their internal economic policies.
The fight to get the best man will be forced to negotiate and from that instance he will achieve the best possible since his interest will be limited by the needs of others, thus achieving a balance. For example, producers who want to obtain the maximum profit, to achieve it, must produce the goods that society needs and at a price that society is willing to pay. this operation was called the "invisible hand" because the economy is arranged in a "magical" way. This mechanism also came into play in the market for the factors of production, ensuring harmony whenever the capitalists sought the maximum possible rents. The right goods will be produced at the right prices and the whole of society will obtain the maximum possible wealth as long as free competition prevails,without in any case the market ceased to function freely, the invisible hand would cease to exist
Nowadays, the economy of a country is no longer influenced so much by the invisible hand, if now other factors already intervene, because the economy of a country is no longer independent, due to this globalization that currently exists. Countries depend on what other countries make of their economies in order to get ahead.
A country depends on the technology of others, so that it can obtain the benefits of that technology and thus be able to get ahead when it comes to exporting its products. So how can a country that is not competitive in technology get ahead?
First, that country depends on technology, but that does not mean that it is not competitive in other aspects, perhaps that country provides good quality inputs to the world, that its industry without a chimney is productive, that it provides facilities to those who want to invest. in it through the currencies. For all this to be carried out with order, the same countries have created rules through organizations that regulate everything concerning international trade such as the WTO (formerly GATT), an issue that I will talk about later.
But Smith's theory is still being carried out, this theory shows us that the preferences of consumers would determine their demand for goods, while the costs of companies are the foundation of the supply of goods. The price of oil depends on whether its demand has decreased or because its supply has increased. But it can also vary because an OPEC member country does not respect the price that should be had, so as not to affect other countries that also export oil.
The exchange rate, has been considered one of the instruments or intermediate objectives of the economic policy of a country, depends to a large extent on the measures it takes regarding its economic policies, it also depends on the political-social events since it depends on it. much and largely investment in the country.
It is clear that you cannot have a macroeconomic policy that is agreeable to the international situation, when you simply cannot have a balance in terms of the internal economic policies that you have in your country, because you cannot handle foreign trade but you can handle yourself in your internal commerce.
The events currently covered by the news regarding the approval of a tax reform in Mexico is controversial, since according to experts the lowest class in the country would be neglected in that its income would fall, and that the productive market sector would be affected, as they have expressed in interviews, that have been done.
To give an example, the construction companies sector in the country says that it has not received sufficient support at least from the past administration, because investment in this sector has not been enough. Bernardo Quintana Isaac, president of Empresas ICA, the main one in the branch in Mexico, says that the construction sector seems to have passed a steamroller over it. José Mendoza Fernández, president of Bufete Industrial, one of the four largest construction companies, is of the same opinion. of the country, which faces serious difficulties in restructuring an expired bond for $ 100 million. “The construction industry is still in crisis, he admits.
Both businessmen coincide in identifying the lack of financing and the decrease in public investment in infrastructure works as the main causes of the problem. Despite the obstacles they have had to overcome in the last five years to stay afloat, they share a hopeful vision of the future, although they still do not observe the new government's definitions of increases in public spending on infrastructure, one of their main sources of income. The main weakness of the large Mexican construction companies is that they depend in the domestic market on what the government in turn does.
The adjustment of public spending in our country, by cutting public spending, has the infrastructure construction industry to one of its main problems. The bottom line of the problem as I see it is that spending has been cut and the market has not grown, if this were not another problem and that is where globalization is to some extent controversial in terms of whether it benefits us or not is the opening to foreign companies, the construction industry suffers the same problems as almost all Mexican companies, they do not resist competition, as I had mentioned before, when signing a commercial treaty, here are the consequences of bad planning.
In industrialized countries, basic infrastructure grows steadily, in line with the pace at which the population and the economy grow, because developers have cheap financing, essential to support long-term projects, such as roads.
That is why the new government of Vicente Fox has to decisively confront the infrastructure problem, both at the company level in the domestic sector, taking into account the productive sector and the most vulnerable classes.
RICARDO HIS IDEAS AND TRANSFORMATIONS.
British economist, of Jewish origin; he was one of the most important members of the classical school of political economy. His logic and the search for the truth in question of the problems that existed in the economic sphere with his society of his time has been the basis for a current neoliberalism and of Marx's analyzes about capitalism. He presented his theories in the work "Principles of Political Economy".
Unlike Smith, whose works he relied on; Ricardo was concerned only in the second instance to find out the causes of growth or, what is the same, the theory of the wealth of nations. His theories focused on growth led him to be interested in the first place in the factors that explain the distribution of income.
He is very struck by the downward trend in profits. What is this the benefits that were obtained through international trade, applied to the domestic economy. But that could be counteracted with the same development of foreign trade. Not in the manner of Smith, who highlighted the role of manufacturing exports in deepening the division of labor. If through cheap cereal imports (a proposal made by himself) that would prevent the normal wage from rising. And therefore, it will facilitate the increase in profits and accumulation necessary for growth.
Ricardo exposes a concept of selling prices of products, like Smith, he thinks about market prices that can be highly variable and be determined by their relative scarcity. It says that the normal price is the value of a commodity, it is determined by the amount of work it contains. It is clear then that the value of a commodity increases when the amount of labor necessary for its manufacture increases and decreases otherwise. In relative terms, it can be said that relative exchange values increase or decrease according to the same principle, even if the quantity of labor incorporated in all commodities decreases.
It is convenient to clarify that the work necessary for the production of a merchandise includes the previous work in the manufacture of “tools, machines and buildings”. It raises the benefits of capital are included in the prices of goods. And this is in proportion to the capital mobilized since there is theoretically a tendency towards the symmetry of the benefits obtained in different activities.
The quantity of labor incorporated into a commodity is the value of the final price. The determination of the rent of the land, affirms that the exchange value of a good (especially the agricultural ones) is determined by the greater amount of work necessary for its production; neither more nor less than marginal cost. Thus, the incorporation of new lands in which production is increasingly difficult increases the exchange value of all agricultural products, favored by the old producers.
It is wise to pause to analyze your formula for him; producing larger volumes had no cost advantages or disadvantages; Since there were constant returns to scale, costs were not reduced by producing a larger quantity but by specializing in the production of goods and services that could be carried out in a relatively more efficient way.
In exchange, the product whose production was relatively less efficient was imported. Trade in goods can achieve the same results as the movement of factors. The market value of immobile factors, such as weather, depends on their most productive use. Entrepreneurs whose objective is to obtain profits will aspire to produce in a place what the existing assets do best.
Here the productive factors of the countries intervene, as well as their climate, their demography, since natural resources are immobile, the absolute advantage is irrelevant; sun and rain could not move to the places where they were most productive in absolute terms. The gains derived from trade come from the specialization of each country in the production of goods in the goods in which it has a comparative advantage. The export of these goods allows imports and consumption more than in the absence of international trade.
Trade generates profits even though one economy is more efficient than the other in producing the two goods. In this case, there is a difference between the wages of the two economies that must be compensated, although it would be necessary to explain the persistence of this difference in efficiency. Mexico and the United States.
If you do not know the demand of the two economies, you can hardly know who gains from trade. However, if one economy is much larger than the other, it is reasonable to assume that the equilibrium terms of trade, which determines the distribution of profits, will look much more like pre-trade prices in the large economy than those of the little girl. In that case, the small economy is the one with the highest proportional gains.
Another source of comparative advantage is the difference between the technologies of different countries. There is an influential theory about European economic development in recent years that places great emphasis on these differences. Britain exports its new technology, which was only slowly absorbed by European industry. The construction dates of the first national railways suggest that this idea is correct. In some countries, new technologies that posed a threat to their economic and political power.
The third reason that technological superiority may persist is the time that has to elapse between discovery and exploitation, in economies "follower" of the natural resources on which the new technology is based. Until the mid-nineteenth century they are consistent with the explanation of thinking that comparative advantage.
To date, the country that has the most technology in these times will be the one that will win the best in this stabilization race within its foreign policies and provide the other countries with that technology that will soon bring out the understandable need for intervention of the Globalization, which is like all discussed, which is necessary as we can see in the contribution that it has given to developing countries that have not known how to forge themselves the lessons of the economy over time is that we can see a great need for these countries to develop, but since they have not been able to take advantage of those opportunities that it has offered them, and the way of when to reach that stabilization must be maintained.
Because Mexico did not know how to stabilize when it had a chance with that happy Mexican miracle, which is now only part of the pages of the bronze history that prevails in this Mexican system, when we signed a trade treaty with the United States and Canada it was said that the Mexico's economy was at its best when in reality the thread that supported the economy was so thin that it only took a few days to realize that fragility.
But we must not forget that I said that social events established their rules for the stabilization of the economy of a country. In Mexico, with the Chiapaneco movement, most of the investors took their money to other countries.
Moving on to what Ricardo established in terms of specialization in terms of getting ahead as a country. It is obvious that the country in which it strives to be a specialist in something, will receive in exchange that favorable response from the other countries because the country that knows best about that product or the service it provides, such is the case of Japan which is a specialist in producing technology for the rest of the world.
A country can no longer live behind schedule, having a closed economy is no longer convenient, in any country in the world, and being competitive DIA by DIA, is the best thing to do. Take advantage of the advantages that countries have, whatever they may be, because of the economy it asks you as a country, an example of this he subsidized that some countries give their products also known in the international arena as Dumping, which are not support, incentives, prizes that governments give to their companies to establish themselves in other countries.
A country that gives it support, which generates unfair practices in foreign trade is China, with its companies it makes labor very cheap, making its production costs not very high, so that they can offer their products. abroad much cheaper than those found in the country to which they are going to export, thus falling into an unfair trade practice.
I will now explain how Ricardo establishes the factors that affected the distribution of income in the long run. On the one hand there was a tendency to increase land rent and therefore the value of products. This evolution, as explained, directly affected the value of labor power or its normal price. Normal wages tended to rise relatively as a result of the increase in the prices of food products, hence the establishment of the importation of cereal as a substitute product.
He mentions something of vital importance is that everything that contributed to reduce the value of agricultural products is absolutely favorable for economic development. The massive importance of cereals from countries in which the income of the land is not as high as in England, from here and always the opportunities offered by the countries have been managed.
The international division of labor was losing force as the United States of America displaces Great Britain as the dominant power. This country, an exporter of agricultural products, did everything possible to liquidate the agricultural productions encouraged by the British and in general by Europeans.
The trade of which I have been making mention of the importation of cereal had a function by allowing the decrease in food prices and through that channel, the reduction of the prices of basic necessities and the yield of wages by having already a different purchase option. Hence the importation of foreign trade in influencing the internal economy of a country.
And consequently if the expansion of foreign trade or the improvement of machinery make it possible to place the food and products necessary for the worker on the market at a reduced price, profits will increase. But for this, specialization for the countries participating in international trade was of vital importance, it means great development of the production and consumption capacity of all nations. Thus establishing a development factor, in addition to a word to raise the general well-being. Ricardo said that “free trade would be something like the beacon that illuminated the path of progress. In a free trade system, each country would naturally invest its capital and labor in jobs that are in the best interest of both.
This pursuit of individual profit is admirably related to universal welfare. Distribute work as effectively and economically as possible by stimulating industry; By increasing the general mass of production, it spreads the general benefit and unites the universal society of nations throughout the civilized world with a common bond of interest or exchange common to all of them.
Specialization is also necessary in cases where the production of all articles requires less labor time in one of the two countries participating in the exchange, hence the establishment of his theory of comparative advantages.
Says Ricardo “he may find himself in such circumstances that cloth production may require the work of 100 men for a year. If you were trying to produce wine, you would probably need the work of 120 men for the same amount of time. Consequently, England prefers to buy the wine by importing it, in exchange for the cloth it produces ”.
Ricardo establishes that the normal value of the international ones will not be equal to the national value. It mentions that if the work of 100 Englishmen, it cannot be exchanged for the work of 80 Englishmen, but the product of the labor of 100 Englishmen can be exchanged for the product of the labor of 80 Portuguese, 60 Russians or 120 East Indians.
The international value of the merchandise will be determined theoretically by the internal relation of prices in the country and the internal relation in the country.
KARL MARX.
He said “For general prosperity, the ease that I know of the circulation and exchange of all kinds of prosperity can never be considered excessive, since it is this means that capital of all kinds has the possibility of finding its way into the hands of of those who will use it best to increase the country's product ”.
Marx had to experience the first crisis of industrial capitalism in the 1830s and the consequent political crisis of 1848. He therefore had to give an explanation of these events from his social historical perspective.
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - "Karl Marx"
In the social production of their life, men enter into certain necessary relations independent of their will, relations of production that correspond to a certain phase of development of their material productive forces. The set of these relations of production forms the economic structure of society, the real base on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond.
The mode of production of material life conditions the process of intellectual life in general. It is not man's consciousness that determines his being, but, on the contrary, it is his social being that determines his consciousness. Upon reaching a certain stage of development of the material productive forces of society, they enter into contradiction with the: existing relations of production, or, which is nothing more than the legal expression of this, with the property relations within which they are established. have developed up to there.
In ways of developing the productive forces, these relationships become their obstacles. And thus a time of social revolution opens. As the economic base changes, the entire immense superstructure erected on it is shocked more or less rapidly. When these shocks are studied there are. to always distinguish between the material changes that occur in the economic conditions of production and that can be appreciated with the exactness of the natural sciences, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical forms; in a word, the ideological ways in which men become aware of this conflict and struggle to resolve it.
And in the same way that we cannot judge an individual by what he - thinks - of himself, he cannot judge these - times of shock by his conscience either. On the contrary, this consciousness must be explained by the contradictions of material life, by the conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social formation disappears before all the productive forces that fit within it develop and new and higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for its existence have matured within the ancient society itself. For this reason, humanity always sets itself only the objectives that it can achieve, because, looking better, it will always be found that these objectives only arise when they already exist, or, at least,are being developed, the. Material conditions for its realization.
Broadly speaking, I can say, like so many other epochs of progress in the formation of society, the Asian mode of production, the ancient, the feudal, and the modern bourgeois. Bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production; antagonistic, not in the sense of an individual antagonism but of an antagonism that comes from the social conditions of life of individuals. But the productive forces that develop within bourgeois society provide, at the same time, the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism. With this social formation closes, therefore the prehistory of human society… (Karl Marx
Marx's economic doctrine
“The aim of this work - says Marx in his preface to Capital - is to discover the economic law of movement in modern society, that is, of capitalist society, of bourgeois society. The study of the production relations of a historically determined and concrete society in its appearance, its development and its decline is what makes up Marx's economic doctrine. In capitalist society the production of commodities prevails; therefore, Marx's analysis begins with the analysis of the commodity. Merchandise "value" is, first of all, an object that satisfies any human need. Second, an object that can be exchanged for another. The utility of an object turns it into use value. Exchange value (or value, simply,) is not primarilyrather than the ratio or proportion in which a certain number of use values of one species are exchanged for a certain number of use values of another species.
Daily experience tells us that, through millions and billions of such acts of change, all kinds of use values are constantly being equated, even the most diverse and least comparable. What is there in common between all these various objects, what makes them equivalent at each step, within a certain system of social relations? They have in common being products of work. By changing their products, what men do is establish relations of equivalence between the most diverse kinds of work.
The production of commodities is a system of social relations in which the various producers create different products (social division of labor) and in which all these products are equated with each other through exchange. Therefore, what all commodities have in common is not the concrete work of a certain branch of production, it is not work of a certain kind, but abstract human labor, human labor in general.
In a given society, the entire labor force, represented by the sum of the values of all commodities, constitutes one and the same human labor force; This is evidenced by billions of acts of change. Consequently, each individual commodity represents no more than a certain part of the socially necessary labor time. The magnitude of value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor or by the time of labor socially necessary to produce a certain commodity or a certain use value. “By equating their various products subject to change, men equate their various jobs as modes of human labor. They don't realize it, but they do.
Value is, as an old economist has said, a relationship between two people. I should simply have added: relationship concealed by a material envelope. Only starting from the system of social relations of production of a historically given social formation, relations that take shape in change, a generalized phenomenon that is repeated billions of times, is it possible to understand what value is. 'As values, commodities are nothing more than definite quantities of coagulated labor time. After analyzing in detail the double character of labor embodied in commodities, Marx proceeds to the analysis of the form of value and money. At this point, the main task that Marx assigns himself is to look for the origin of the monetary form of value, to study the historical process of the development of change, beginning.by loose and fortuitous barter operations ("simple, loose or casual form of value": a certain quantity of a commodity is exchanged for a certain quantity of another commodity) until going back to the general form of value, in which different commodities are exchanged for another determined and concrete merchandise, always the same, and to the monetary form, in which the function of this merchandise, that is, the function of general equivalent, is already exercised by gold.that is, the function of the general equivalent is already exercised by gold.that is, the function of the general equivalent is already exercised by gold.
Money, the product in which the development of exchange and the production of merchandise culminates, conceals and conceals the social character of part-time jobs, the existing social link between the various producers united by the market. Marx subjects the various functions of money to an extraordinarily detailed analysis, and it should be noted, since it is of great importance, that in these pages (as in all the first chapters of Capital) the abstract form of the exposition, which at times seems purely deductive, it actually gathers the conclusions of a gigantic arsenal of data on the history of the development of exchange and the production of commodities. 'Money implies a certain level of exchange of goods. The different forms of money - simple equivalent of goods, means of circulation, means of payment,world treasure and money - indicate, according to the different scope and relative preponderance of one of these functions, very different degrees of the social process of production.
The surplus value according to Marx.
“As the production of commodities reaches a certain degree of development, money becomes capital. The formula for the circulation of merchandise was: M (merchandise) - D (money) -M (merchandise), that is, the sale of one merchandise to buy another. The general formula for capital is, on the contrary, DMD, that is, buy for sale (at a profit). The growth of the primitive value of money released into circulation is what Marx calls surplus value.
This "increase" of money released into capitalist circulation is a fact known to the whole world. And it is precisely this "increase" that converts money into capital, that is, into a historically determined social relation of production. The surplus value cannot come from the circulation of merchandise, since it only knows the exchange of equivalents; Nor can it come from an increase in prices, since the losses and the reciprocals of sellers and buyers would balance out; it is a generalized, average social phenomenon and not an individual phenomenon.
In order to obtain surplus value, “the holder of money needs to find in the market a commodity whose use value possesses the singular property of being a source of value, a commodity whose consumption process is, at the same time, a value creation process. And this commodity exists: it is the power of man's labor. Its use is work, and work creates value. The possessor of money buys labor power at its value, determined, like that of any other commodity, by the labor time socially necessary for its production (that is, by the cost of maintaining the worker and his family). Having bought the labor power, the possessor of the money has the right to consume it, that is, to force it to work for a whole day, say twelve hours.But the worker creates in six hours ("necessary" labor time) a product that is sufficient for his maintenance; during the remaining six hours ("extra" labor time) it generates a "surplus product" not paid by the capitalist, which is surplus value.
Consequently, from the point of view of the production process, two parts of capital must be distinguished: constant capital, invested in means of production (machines, work instruments, raw materials, etc.) - and whose value passes without changes (once or in part) to the finished product-, and the variable capital, which is what is invested in paying for labor power. The value of this capital does not remain unchanged, but increases in the process of labor, by creating surplus value. Therefore, to express the degree of exploitation of labor power by capital, we have to compare surplus value not with total capital, but with variable capital exclusively. The share of surplus value, which is what Marx calls this ratio, would thus, in our example, be 6: 6, that is, 100%.
It is a historical premise for the appearance of capital, first, the accumulation of a certain sum of money in the hands of certain people, with a relatively high level of development of market production in general; and, second, the existence of "free" workers in a double sense - free from all the obstacles or restrictions placed on the sale of labor power and free because they lack land and all kinds of means of production -, workers without any estate, of "proletarian" workers who cannot subsist except by selling their labor power.
There are two main ways of increasing surplus value: by lengthening the working day ("absolute surplus value") and reducing the labor time required ("relative surplus value"). By analyzing the first mode, Marx parades before us the grandiose panorama of the struggle of the working class to reduce the working day and of the intervention of the public power, first to prolong it (14th to 17th centuries) and then to reduce it (legislation 19th century factory). The history of the labor movement in all civilized countries has provided, since the appearance of Capital, thousands and thousands of new data that illustrate this panorama.
In his analysis of the production of relative surplus value, Marx investigates the three fundamental historical stages in the process of intensification of labor productivity by capitalism: 1) simple cooperation; 2) the division of labor and manufacturing; 3) machines and big industry. How deeply Marx emphasizes the fundamental and typical features of the development of capitalism is told, among other things, by the fact that the study of the so-called Russian "kustare" industry has provided a wealth of materials to illustrate the first two stages. of the three indicated. As for the revolutionary action of large mechanized industry, described by Marx in 1867, in the half century since then it has come to reveal itself in a whole series of "new" countries (Russia, Japan, etc.).
Let's continue. Important in him to the highest degree and new to Marx is the analysis of the accumulation of capital, that is, of the transformation into capital of a part of the surplus value and of its use not to satisfy the personal needs or the whims of the capitalist, but to produce again. Marx shows the error of the entire previous classical political economy (since Adam Smith) when he understands that all the surplus value that was converted into capital became part of variable capital, when in reality it is decomposed into means of production plus variable capital. Of exceptional importance in the process of development of capitalism and of its transformation into socialism is the faster growth of the part of constant capital (in the total sum of capital) relative to the part of variable capital.
By accelerating the movement of workers through machinery, producing wealth at one pole and misery at the other, capital accumulation also gives rise to the so-called "reserve army of labor", the "relative surplus" of workers or " capitalist overpopulation, which takes extraordinarily diverse forms and enables capital to expand production with singular rapidity. This possibility, combined with credit and the accumulation of capital in means of production, gives us, among other things, the key to understanding the crises of overproduction, which occur periodically in capitalist countries, first every ten years, little more or less. less, and then with larger and less precise intervals. From the accumulation of capital on the basis of capitalism we must distinguish the so-called primitive accumulation,when the worker is violently dispossessed of his means of production, the peasant is expelled from his land, communal lands are stolen and the colonial system and the system of public debts, customs and protectionist tariffs, etc., rule. "Primitive accumulation" creates at one pole the "free" proletarian, and at the opposite pole the possessor of money, the capitalist.
Marx characterizes the "historical tendency of capitalist accumulation" in the following famous terms: "The expropriation of direct producers is carried out with the most ruthless vandalism and with the spur of the most infamous, most base and most petty and hateful passions.. Private property, won through personal labor »(of the peasant and the artisan)« and which the free individual has created by identifying himself in a certain way with the instruments and conditions of his labor, gives way to capitalist private property, which rests in the exploitation of the work of others and that has no more than a semblance of freedom…
Now it is no longer a question of expropriating the worker who exploits his own property, but the capitalist, who exploits many workers. This expropriation is operated by the play of the immanent laws of capitalist production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist kills many others. And along with this centralization or expropriation of many capitalists by a few, the cooperative form of the labor process develops, on an ever greater and wider scale, the conscious application of science to technology, exploitation systematic soil, the transformation of the means of work into a means of cinema can only be used in common, the economies of all the means of production through their use as means of production of a combined social work,the incorporation of all peoples into the network of the world market, and, along with it, the international character of the capitalist regime.
As the number of capital magnates, who usurp and monopolize all the advantages of this process of transformation, constantly decreases, poverty, oppression, slavery, degeneration, exploitation as a whole increase; but it also increases, at the same time, the rebellion of the working class, which is educated, united and organized by the mechanism of the capitalist production process itself. The monopoly of capital becomes the shackle of the mode of production that had developed with it and thanks to it. The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of work reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist envelope, which ends up exploding. The last hour of capitalist private property rings. The expropriators are expropriated »
Another extraordinarily important and new point is Marx's analysis of the reproduction of social capital taken as a whole, in Volume II of Capital. Also in this case, Marx takes a general phenomenon, and not an individual one; it takes the entire social economy as a whole, and not a fraction of it. Rectifying the error of the classics to which we referred above, Marx divides all social production into two large sections: 1) production of means of production and 2) production of consumer goods. And with the support of figures, he studies in detail the circulation of social capital as a whole, both in simple reproduction and in accumulation. In volume III of Capital, the problem of the formation of the average profit quota is solved on the basis of the law of value.It is a great advance in economic science that Marx always starts, in his research, from general economic phenomena, from the whole of the social economy, and not from individual cases or from the superficial manifestations of competition, to which he usually limits himself. vulgar political economy or the modern "theory of limit utility" Marx first analyzes the origin of surplus value and then proceeds to its decomposition into profit, interest and ground rent.to which vulgar political economy or modern "limit utility theory" is usually limited. Marx first analyzes the origin of surplus value and then proceeds to its decomposition into profit, interest and ground rent.to which vulgar political economy or modern "limit utility theory" is usually limited. Marx first analyzes the origin of surplus value and then proceeds to its decomposition into profit, interest and ground rent.
Profit is the ratio of capital gains to all the capital invested in a company. Capital of "high organic composition" (that is, in which constant capital predominates over variable capital in proportions above the social average) gives a lower than average profit share. "Low organic composition" capital yields a higher than average profit share. Competition between capitals, their free passage from one branch of production to another, in both cases reduce the share of profit to the average.
The sum of the values of all the goods of a given society coincides with the sum of the prices of these goods, but in the different companies and in the different branches of production the goods, under the pressure of competition, are not sold for their own sake. value, but by the price of production, which is equal to the capital invested plus the average profit.
Thus, a fact known to all and indisputable - that prices differ from values and profits compensate each other -, Marx explains perfectly starting from the law of value, since the sum of the values of all commodities matches the sum of their prices. But the reduction of (social) value to (individual) prices is not a simple and direct operation, but rather follows a very complicated path: it is perfectly logical that in a society of dispersed commodity producers, linked only by the market, the Laws that govern that society are forcibly manifested through average, social, and general results, with reciprocal compensation for individual deviations in one way or another.
The rise in labor productivity means a faster growth of constant capital relative to variable capital. But, since the surplus value is its exclusive function, it is understood that the profit share (that is, the relationship that the surplus value has with all capital, and not with its variable part only) shows a downward trend. Marx carefully analyzes this trend, as well as the various circumstances that conceal or counteract it. Without stopping to expose the extraordinarily interesting chapters of round III, which deal with usurious, commercial and money capital, we turn to the essentials, to the theory of land rent.
Taking into account that the surface of the land is limited, since in capitalist countries it is entirely occupied by private properties, the price of production of the products of the land is not determined by the costs of production in the land of average quality, but in the inferior quality; It is not determined by the average conditions in which the product is brought to market, but by the worst conditions. The difference between this price and the price of production on better land (or in better conditions) constitutes the differential rent. Marx analyzes in detail the differential rent, showing that it comes from the difference in fertility of the different fields, from the difference in the capitals invested in cultivation, fully highlighting (see also the Theories of Surplus Value,where Rodbertus's criticism deserves special attention) Ricardo's error, that the differential rent is obtained only by the successive passage from better to lower quality land. On the contrary, there are also inverse cases: the lands of a certain class are transformed into lands of another class (thanks to the advances in agricultural technology, the expansion of cities, etc.), and the decadent "Law of "diminishing returns from the soil" is a "profound error, which burdens nature with the defects, limitations, and contradictions of capitalism.the land of a certain class is transformed into land of another class (thanks to the advances of agricultural technology, the expansion of cities, etc.), and the decadent "Law of diminishing returns from the soil" is a 'profound error, which bears on nature the defects, limitations and contradictions of capitalism.the land of a certain class is transformed into land of another class (thanks to the advances of agricultural technology, the expansion of cities, etc.), and the decadent "Law of diminishing returns from the soil" is a 'profound error, which bears on nature the defects, limitations and contradictions of capitalism.
Furthermore, the equality of profits in all branches of industry and of the national economy in general, supposes complete freedom of competition, the freedom to transfer capital from one branch of production to another. But private ownership of the land creates a monopoly, which is an obstacle to that free transfer. By virtue of this monopoly, the products of an agriculture which is distinguished by a low composition of capital and, consequently, gives a higher individual profit share, do not enter the game totally free of equalization of profit shares.
The agricultural owner can, as a monopolist, keep his prices above average; this monopoly price gives rise to absolute rent. Differential rent cannot be abolished within capitalism; on the other hand, absolute rent can be, for example, with the nationalization of the land, when it becomes the property of the State. This measure would mean the breaking of the monopoly of agricultural owners, a more consistent and more complete application of the freedom of competition in agriculture. That is why, Marx warns, the radical bourgeois have repeatedly formulated throughout history this progressive bourgeois demand for the nationalization of the land, which, however, scares the majority of the bourgeoisie,because it "touches" too close to another much more important and "sensitive" monopoly today: the monopoly of the means of production in general. (Marx expounds in an extraordinarily popular, concise and clear language his theory of average profit on capital and absolute ground rent, in his letter to Engels of August 2, 1867. See Correspondence, Vol. III, pp. 77-81. See also, in the same work, pp. 86-87, the letter of August 9, 1862.)the letter of August 9, 1862.)the letter of August 9, 1862.)
In the history of land rent it is also important to point out the analysis in which Marx demonstrates the transformation of labor income (when the peasant creates the surplus product by working on the land of the master) into natural income or income in kind (when the peasant creates the surplus product on his own land, then handing it over to the master by the empire of "non-economic coercion"), then for rent in money (which is the same rent in kind, only redeemed in cash, that of ancient Russia, by virtue of the development of commodity production) and, finally, in capitalist income, in which the peasant leaves his position to the employer, who cultivates the land with the help of wage labor.
In connection with this analysis of the "genesis of capitalist land rent," a number of deep insights from Marx (of particular importance to backward countries such as Russia) about the evolution of capitalism in agriculture must be noted. «The transformation of natural income into money income is not only invariably accompanied by the formation of the class of poor day laborers, who are hired for money: it even precedes it. During the period of its formation, when this new class appears only sporadically, among the more affluent peasants, obliged to pay the census, the custom of exploiting rural salaried workers on their own account is spreading, as is logical. so that already under feudalism the well-off servants of the gleba had in turn servants at their service.
In this way, little by little, the possibility of accumulating a certain fortune and of becoming future capitalists is being formed in them. Among the former cultivators of their own land thus arises a focus of capitalist tenants, whose development depends on the general development of capitalist production outside agriculture "" The expropriation and expulsion from the village of a part of the peasant population, not they only "liberate" for industrial capital the workers, their livelihoods and their instruments of work, but also create the internal market for it "
The impoverishment and ruin of the peasant population, in turn, influence the formation of the reserve army of workers for capital. In every capitalist country, “a part of the peasant population is constantly in the process of transforming itself into an urban or manufacturing (that is, non-agricultural) population. This source of relative overpopulation runs incessantly… The farm worker is therefore reduced to the minimum wage and always has one foot in the swamp of pauperism »
The private property of the peasant over the land he cultivates is the basis of small production and the condition for its flourishing and development in the classical way. But that small production is only compatible with a narrow, primitive framework of production and society. Under capitalism, 'the exploitation of the peasants is distinguished from the exploitation of the industrial proletariat only in form. The exploiter is the same: capital. Undoubtedly, the capitalists exploit the peasants through mortgages and usury; the capitalist class exploits the peasant class by means of state taxes »(Class struggles in France)« The peasant's plot is now only the pretext that allows the capitalist to extract profit, interest and rent from the land,leaving the farmer to manage to get his salary as he can »
Ordinarily, the peasant cedes even to capitalist society, that is, to the capitalist class, a part of his salary, descending "to the level of the Irish settler, and all under the guise of private owner." Class struggles in France What Is it "one of the reasons why in countries where parcel ownership predominates, the price of wheat is lower than in countries where there is a capitalist mode of production"?
The cause is that the peasant gives free to society (that is, to the capitalist class) a part of the surplus product. "These low prices (of wheat and other agricultural products) are, therefore, a consequence of the poverty of the producers and in no case the result of the productivity of their work"
With capitalism, small agrarian property, a normal form of small production, is gradually degrading, is destroyed and disappears. «Parcel ownership is, by nature, incompatible with the development of the social productive forces of labor, with the social forms of labor, with the social concentration of capital, with large-scale livestock farming and with the progressive use of science. Usury and the tax system necessarily have to ruin it everywhere. The capital invested in the purchase of the land is capital subtracted from cultivation. Infinite dispersion of the means of production and dissemination of the producers themselves.
(Cooperatives, that is, associations of small peasants, play an extraordinary progressive role, but they cannot but attenuate this trend, without actually suppressing it; moreover, it should not be forgotten that these cooperatives, very convenient for the wealthy peasants, give very little, almost nothing, to the mass of the poor peasants, and that these associations end up exploiting wage labor themselves.) «Immense waste of human energy and the accommodation of others.
The progressive worsening of the conditions of production and the increase in the cost of the means of production are the law of parcel property "In agriculture, as in industry, the capitalist transformation of the production system occurs at the price of" Of the producers ». «The dissemination of the workers of the field in great extensions, breaks its force of resistance, whereas the concentration of the workers of the city increases it. As in modern industry, in modern capitalist agriculture, the increase in the productive force of labor and its greater mobility are achieved at the cost of destroying and exhausting the labor force itself. Apart from this, all progress in capitalist agriculture is not only a development of the worker, but also of the soil… Therefore,if capitalist production does not develop the technique and the combination of the social process of production other than making the most of the sources of all wealth: the land and the worker
TODAY'S ECONOMY “PROGRESS OR DESTRUCTION TOMORROW”.
It is clear that today's economy is still based on some established ideas, by the initiators of what we know today as an economy, and they laid the foundations for the development of international trade. It is clear that some of these ideas are no longer applied because society itself has changed and has "evolved" but something stands out from all these ideas, and that is that the country that is best prepared to defend itself both militarily and technologically will be able to get ahead., but of course developing countries will not have that opportunity, therefore those who rule this country, as well as those who send this country must agree on the decisions they make, but of course this is only an opinion of their servant.
Day after day we fight to achieve the established goals that we want so much for our country to move forward, that is why we prepare ourselves, so that we finally reach that dream development, something that cannot be achieved overnight. We all think that what is done and produced outside our country is better done than what we do here, let's think that what we study we never apply, that we will never have the opportunity to compete with other people, so what do we prepare for? just to survive in this society, "well no" we have the same thinking capacity, but trade does not therefore support it in the best way even sometimes sacrificing ourselves, we will see a development tomorrow, this is controversial but maybe Once, we come to think that if we fall, we will not be able to get up, the disposition,if we have it, we can get ahead.
It sounds a bit dreamy, but it usually happens, the macroeconomic growth of a country depends and believe me in each and every one of us, a country is not forged with the dispositions of others but with the will of all, the opportunities and the best, Sometimes they are offered only once, but “we will be prepared”, just thinking about it gives us some uncertainty, that is why the government must implement improvements in an educational system (which must be prepared day after day). education with the macroeconomic development of a country? Well, this was established a long time as Smith said, to have an individual development we must be jealous even with others in order to get ahead, but this is just a thought, which now does not serve to a great extent, since progress we must take it together,education in a country is paramount. If you don't know how to read, you won't learn, if you don't learn, you simply don't specialize and if you don't specialize, you'll walk around like a beggar, doing everything but nothing that turns out really well.
What is the use of having a technology if no one knows how to handle it, and what is the use of a good education if there is no place to apply it. This is to think, a country which has a hundred million inhabitants, which excluding the elderly and children who are not of an economically active age, and the others what? Those who prepare to later provide a service can establish a good place in the future establishment of a country, which requests more prepared people, and those who do not prepare will be excluded, and the same will happen with their country.
Since a country needs to be prepared to face this desired development, little by little the effort that we put into the work that we develop jointly with our country will be noticed. Once I asked my teacher why Japan is a developed country, since it was a country which in the middle of the last century was practically destroyed? The teacher answered me that it was because of his religion, because he was so insistent, because I say that it was the will to give his country the best that he can, they sent their young people to prepare and then apply that knowledge, to love your country the Which sees you grow, deserves your help, without falling into a nationalism, which has only brought delay, prepare it, study its needs, see its people understand it, is something that we must reason and meditate.
What good are so many economic policies, so many reforms, so many treaties when one does not know the needs of his own State. Governing a country with laws that are only approved by raised fingers, sometimes senseless, would invite our senators and deputies, to stand up from their seats sometimes and see what is outside, in their country, meet the peasant and invite him to Let him discuss his concerns and express his feelings, when Marcos was invited, everyone was surprised when he had to pass long ago.
Seeing the world, the way it develops, gives us guidelines to know how we are, but sometimes we think, why are we not like the United States, or Japan etc.
Countries are like a family of siblings, which are not all the same, so the treatment for some and the way they develop is individual, but a child is forming the same country, grows, sees its limitations and tries to overcome them, and others to bear them, the will that you put will be circumstantial.
Perhaps there is no parent who will help you, but if there are a million ideas to propose and make the best decision, whether it benefits or harms us, we must ponder it. He who compares a lot will see little in himself his achievements, but who gives everything he will realize that he will have already excelled, (if Ricardo would have been more concerned about how to make these comparative advantages become a benefit not his own but for everyone, such Maybe we would be talking about another economy in some countries).
The economy teaches you that to understand it you must see it as the family economy, but when applying it you must be as individualistic as possible and take advantage of where you can, that is turned into the daily bread for a few. It is more than established that the economy will be favored more internationally the better I take advantage of some who are not better than him.
We will have the best laws for development, we will have the best system, but if we do not have the will, the desire or sometimes the opportunities, we will not be able to advance. Another fundamental part in the life of a country is private initiative, since through it the resources from abroad reach our country.
But we must not forget that medium and micro-enterprises are important for the development of the country both internally and externally, since they generate jobs, and many times support the foreign economy that the country may have. Since they are the ones who seek new markets for their development, but the government is a fundamental part of the support that they provide through the different corresponding institutions.
Attracting investments, through facilities and cheap labor is something that Mexico cannot live on, preparing its inhabitants to have qualified labor, and preparing their companies for this type of skills is something that everyone is worried about., mainly the producers.
Developing a country's microeconomics serves to boost international trade, promoting exports is important, but developing rural areas is vitally important, and our role in the world is to produce basic necessities. Such as food, some manufactured products, etc., that is why the progress and support of the rural areas of our environment is of vital importance.
Let's not make our Mexican hands go in search of a dream to the neighboring country, which punishes the worker who is not from his country, discrimination, as a consequence of a country not knowing how to use them, treating them is seeing the best way to helping them, through better planning of their resources, might be another thing. The close relationship between the participating countries in this increasingly globalized economy will be related to the participations that are had with the intervention of trade agreements, the best performance and guarantee of a solid economy, which guarantees a development with tranquility, with a Solvent support, this distributed equitably between the obligations of each one, and the work of all together, that well-being of both sides can be achieved,that although they depend on each other why they do not give themselves these facilities, but also demanding those commitments with the preparation, the free help through capitals that although they help, also forms the heavy burden, of each and every one as members of that nation.
The improvement of an economic model that helps the incorporation of companies in the financial world, the improvement of this support not only for large companies but also for medium and small ones that are what we have already been talking about, the contribution of a People wanting to get ahead, not only to satisfy their needs but also to improve intellectually and, consequently, economically, will help the contribution of a nation forged with measures regulated and proposed by its inhabitants.
With the support of a bank which can support to a certain extent those attempts to establish itself as a company outside the world, which requests new and improved products which satisfy its needs and the support of the integration of some companies that, although They can be selfish, they can both win with the improvement of both parties, with the proposals of new technological ideas, with the retention of them, and the government impulse which does not support research, wanting to get ahead as entrepreneurs as students forms a chain of needs concluding that if each and every one contributes a grain to mutual help and put aside that closure of new and improved proposals, to having to learn from the failures that we have already made in the past,and explain to us how to improve them can have a contribution to our country and the world, a contribution that through integration can give us those benefits sought and the provision of internal improvements with a free trade zone that it proposes but does not manage at will. that transmits but does not include, that celebrates but does not punish, that supports but seeks its price from that support to the situation in which it finds itself, that seeks through its values, however complicated they may be, internal improvement as It identified and not as an animal which seeks to survive as it may, eliminating the competition in order to leave the best bite, look inside its inhabitants for those needs, it has not signed more promises,and yes to the solutions that they provide us through prepared minds, yes to the reason, the reason for things, internal and external improvement, since in the end we are still one, with the same primary needs, and through an improvement we will be able to go from them to the search for new opportunities, in trade in an economy which intervenes in our arguments as a student, as a teacher, as a politician and economist that the good intentions of multinational integrations are not enough, that the intervention of new fiscal policies that are only measures that the most unprotected will protect but know nothing about them, that international firms are not enough, that reason and the establishment of clear measures to obtain both benefits serve,that commerce serves man and that man does not serve commerce, since not only internal national improvements included in each individual are lost, and that they establish new guidelines for a non-military or political improvement, if not of a future that It will be forged with new generations of enterprising men with joy and effort, of falls and errors and Mexican miracles in our case and a solid principle of intellectual, economic and international well-being.of falls and errors and Mexican miracles in our case and a solid principle of intellectual, economic and international well-being.of falls and errors and Mexican miracles in our case and a solid principle of intellectual, economic and international well-being.
Download the original file
