David Ricardo

We examine the most famous controversy between economists as a means of shedding fresh light on the current debate about economic methodology. By focusing on the controversy as the primary unit of analysis, we show how methodological considerations are but one of a whole set of stratagems strategically employed by each opponent. We argue that each opponent's preference for a particular kind of stratagems expresses his own specific scientific style. We also describe a dynamic dimension of the controversy, independent of the participants' intentions, which we analyse in a "cycle" of the controversy. The definition and re-definition of the issue(s) at stake and of the difference between both participants is an essential and recurrent feature of such cycles; the conclusion of a cycle does not imply a real closure of the controversy, but only persuasion. Rather, its benefit seems to lie in an unintended result - clarification and deepening of contrasting approaches to the discipline  -  due to its peculiar dynamics. In so far as the history of a discipline requires a reconstruction of such contrasts, it is indispensable for it to take into account the controversies where they emerge, and to view both the positive doctrines and the methodological posture of the contenders as parts of a wider framework, that is a scientific style.

D'effrayante ou improbable, la perspective d'un état économique stationnaire est devenue dangereusement proche, voire souhaitable. De Malthus et Ricardo à notre époque contemporaine en passant par le tournant de la théorie de John Stuart Mill, réhabilitons une notion d'économie et de philosophie politique trop longtemps dévalorisée.

The role of public finances has varied throughout economic history and its currents of thought, however, something undoubtedly is that it has always had a greater or lesser extent in the economic-social decisions of individuals, since the centuries that Once the feud has been carried out until the financial capitalism that prevails today, the issue of taxes and the management of financial resources by the State has always been the subject of economic discussion among countries.

El presente trabajo versa sobre la interpretación que realizan diferentes escuelas de la economía de las relaciones de producción y el conflicto capital-trabajo, con el objeto de conectarlas con el estudio social y político de la realidad económica. Para ello, se realiza una literatura comparada, comenzando con los aportes de Marx de las relaciones de clase, la ley del valor, la formación de precios, la ganancia y la competencia, así como su conexión con la teoría de Ricardo. De este modo, indagaremos en la influencia que ha ejercido la teoría marxiana en el enfoque neoclásico, el pensamiento de Schumpeter y el análisis de Kalecki.

The theory of Rent as it is known today, has gone through numerous interpretations and re-interpretations from the time when high import bounties were placed under the exploiting Corn Laws in the British Victorian era. The role of Classical political economists and Marxists remain inevitably important here. Therefore, this paper shall try to review different interpretations by the Classical Political Economist, focusing majorly on Ricardo’s derivations and concluding with a Marxist perspective on it. It shall also look upon the antagonistic relationship between the landlords, capitalists and the labourers.
Key words: Corn law, Rent, land, monopoly, wages, profits

Over its two hundred-year history, international trade theory witnessed increasing role of knowledge. Following classical theories of Smith (1776), and Ricardo (1817), based solely on labor as an element of cost, neoclassical contributions made it possible to take capital and other production factors into account through the concept of opportunity cost, undermining knowledge. Even the modern trade theories of Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson used two-factor models including just labor and capital. As of 1960s, parallel to the debate over Leontief Paradox, new theories of international trade began to cover knowledge and related concepts like skilled labor, technology gap, product cycle, etc. According to theories, how and who can trade with whom, we will try to explain this situation in this study.

This chapter follows the formation of Marx's labour theory of value through a critique of the "value" theories of the classics, to show that only by the analysis and critique of the forms of value (the commodity, money, capital, profit, rent, etc.), Marx was able to pierce the "nexus of appearance" which constitutes the theoretical horizon of both the classics and some of their modern-day Marxist adepts, in order to establish the only coherent, social, and coherently social theory of value in the history of science.

Value without Fetish presents the first in-depth English-language study of the influential Japanese economist Uno Kōzō‘s (1897-1977) theory of ‘pure capitalism’ in the light of the method and object of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy. A close analysis of the theories of value, production and reproduction, and crisis in Uno’s central texts from the 1930s to the 1970s reveals his departure from Marx’s central insights about the fetish character of the capitalist mode of production – a departure that Lange shows can be traced back to the failed epistemology of value developed in Uno’s earliest writings. By disavowing the complex relation between value and fetish that structures Marx’s critique, Uno adopts the paradigms of neoclassical theories to present an apology rather than a critique of capitalism.

Even after the demise of the influential Uno School in the 1980s, Japanese economists have been continuously engaged in the categorial reconstruction of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy, especially the theory of value and money. Writing in the 1980s–
2000s, authors of the ‘post-Uno School’, such as Ebitsuka Akira, Mukai Kimitoshi, Kataoka Kōji etc., broadened the value-theoretical views of Uno School orthodoxy to include, among others, the Neue Marx-Lektüre (predominantly H.-G. Backhaus and M. Heinrich) and the French economists C. Benetti and J. Cartelier.
This paper will confront the ‘post-Uno School’s’ reading of Marx’s theory of value, which poses the theories of value and money as unreconcilable, leading them to discard the theory of value in favour of a ‘monetary approach’. We show that the dismissal
of value theory leads to an introduction of Baileyan and neoclassical elements into Marx’s theory, which we believe to be both theoretically and practically precarious.

Graduate thesis for Kingston University's CEP (Contemporary European Philosophy Program), supervised by Catherine Malabou

In critical assessments of the work of Karl Marx, the role of nature is often trivialized—he is portrayed as an incontrovertibly anthropocentric thinker, whose mature texts convey how humans shape an external reality wholly devoid of pregiven meaning. Yet examined more closely, we find that epistemic determinacy in Marx’s work only prevails insofar as man is already the product of aleatory natural structures—and that, furthermore, these natural structures furnish the very condition of man’s “metabolic,” material interaction with nature.  With a view to how Marx reconceives the Hegelian Aufhebung along materialist lines, this essay investigates how the “processes of nature” upon which constant capital depend eventually supply the technological and epistemological “key” for nature’s ontological (and veridical) comprehension—a transition described in Friedrich Engels’ Dialectics of Nature; a text that has been roundly dismissed by Western Marxists.  But the discovery of nature, and suprahuman agency more generally—a discovery akin, dialectically, to the revelation of “ontologically primary wholes” in Hegel’s Logic—does not result in the situation of man at the centre of the world. Rather, what it reveals is the increasingly important role of machinic agents (Andrew Ure’s “vast automatons,” which Marx repurposes in an Aristotelian vein) to capitalist production—and how capitalism’s dependency on the extraction of surplus-value must ultimately be abolished for machines, and their human stewards, to actualize their potentials.

Marx’s labour theory of value cannot be understood without the critique of the value theories of classical political economy, especially that of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It is therefore by necessity inflicted with the presupposition of its own intellectual context. Presupposition however is not only central to the formation of the labour theory of value as «analogous to Newton’s Laws in mechanics» (Duncan Foley) in the realm of social science. Presupposition, a strong  Hegelian topos,  also basically  informs  the  level  of  Marx’s  critique  as  the  critique  of  the  forms,  and  hence,  the  fetish-character  of  value,  as  they  appear  within the bourgeois economic horizon. However, it is precisely the unfolding of the presuppositions of «simple exchange», «money», «profit» etc. that puts Marx’s method in contrast to the apotheosis of given data that informs «economics» today.  First,  I  will  first  recapitulate  the  aporias  in  the  theories  of  value  of  the  classics to show how Marx developed the original labour theory of value. Second, the  demand  of  “presuppositionlessness”  and  the  “proof ”  of  the  LTV  that  has  (mis)informed approaches in Marxian value recently, will be critically targeted.

The central aim of this dissertation is to make an unambiguous international trade policy recommendation for developing countries grounded on rigorous economic theory. As is generally known, trade models featuring increasing returns to scale and imperfect competition have challenged the mainstream case for free trade which is built upon unrealistic assumptions like constant return to scale and perfect competition. In this context, the core contribution of this dissertation is the restatement of the original free- trade case made by the classical political economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo. This restatement is based on the accurate interpretation of Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. The classical case for free trade formulated by Smith and Ricardo neither relies on unrealistic assumptions nor the laissez-faire doctrine. On the contrary, it stipulates that free trade should always be accompanied by public policies that expand the provision of public education, job training, health care and infrastructure. Moreover, a widespread policy change towards free trade should always be implemented gradually, in order to take care of those groups who might be affected in the short run by the increased level of international competition and technological progress. The main conclusion of the dissertation is that free trade – as conceived by classical political economy – is the most suitable international trade policy for developed as well developing countries for achieving sustainable economic growth and development.

Be it an economist or a sociologist, the influence of the Classical Political theories have been profound in these fields as it addresses the basic concepts like labour and value. Value can be understood as a social property of a commodity where it generates from a particular social relation between the owners and the labourers. This value generation then follows the process of distribution or allocation across different groups of societies. Not only while drawing the beginning of human societies but also in understanding everyday contemporary happenings which remains incomplete without these theories. If one has to draw the historical underpinnings when this Classical theories saw a surge around the time of William Petty in England and the Physiocrats in France continuing it till Smithian ideas and then Marx. The Mercantilists on the other hand emerged as a group which solely focused on the component of ‘profit’ generation and monopolistic market situation and as Stewart called it ‘profit upon alienation’ by buying something for cheap and the selling it for a higher price. Adam Smith’s major breakthrough was his An Inquiry into the Nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) which tried to address the in depth formulations of political economy. Smith’s labour theory of value has often been described as lacking internal coherence. Hence, this paper shall try to dive into the inconsistencies of Smith’s idea of value and distribution from the viewpoint of various economists, classical and contemporary and read through the incomplete analysis that he left for his successors.

There are three main claims in the paper: first, there is sufficient evidence for affirming that Ricardo adhered to Smith’s productivity theory; second, Ricardo’s original demonstration of the comparative- advantage proposition is indeed compatible and complementary with respect to the latter; and third, Ricardo agreed with Smith’s multifactorial explanation of the pattern of trade, which includes increasing returns and economies of scale. These results suggest that the level of compatibility between the international trade theories of Smith and Ricardo is significantly higher than it is currently reflected in the economic literature. They also add a new perspective to the ongoing process of reassessment of Smith’s contributions to international trade theory, further strengthening the view that he was indeed an outstanding international trade theorist.

Hla Myint interpreted Adam Smith's "two distinct benefits" from foreign trade as a vent-for-surplus gain and a productivity gain. This classification has been adopted widely, but the vent-for-surplus gain has caused some debates. In this article, I show that Myint's categorization is based on a misinterpretation. Smith's two distinct benefits consist of exports and imports. Additionally, Smith does not expound a vent-for-surplus theory. Besides Smith's true benefits from trade, I discuss reasons for their modern misinterpretation and David Ricardo's and John Stuart Mill's criticism of Smith's theory, which is often misunderstood as well.

David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage is often a) poorly understood, and b) misunderstood to prove blanket validity for free trade as policy.  This article explains in clear terms what the theory really says, and why it proves no such thing.

Given that a statue of Miguel de Cervantes was vandalized in the Golden Gate Park of San Francisco during the recent wave of protests against racism, colonialism, and capitalism in the United States, a brief reflection on the significance of slavery in the novelist's masterpiece seems appropriate. Cervantes weaves together so many perspectives on master-slave relationships in _Don Quijote de la Mancha_ (part one, 1605; part two, 1615) that he inevitably drifts toward abstract and speculative thinking about the topic. Even more consistently than a significant minority of thinkers of the School of Salamanca, Cervantes holds that slavery is essentially immoral; but one of his more remarkable insights anticipates Smith's utilitarian critique of slavery as less efficient than labor that is compensated.

Deux idées sont au cœur des deux parties de cet argumentaires. Pour la première : l’émancipation de l’économie comme idée vis-à-vis de la morale a impliqué, au XVIIIe siècle, de trancher le nœud de la querelle dans le sens de ce que l’on peut, rétrospectivement, dénommer « l’idéologie de la croissance ». Quant à la deuxième hypothèse : c’est la sociologie qui a pris le relais de la vieille critique du luxe, via une réflexion sur la distinction et la symbolique des objets, avant de se dissoudre quelque peu sous les coups d’approches microsociologiques ou de l’impérialisme de l’économie (néoclassique). Ainsi fut réussi le coup de force craint par Veblen, il y a tout juste un siècle : évacuer la question des goûts comme enjeu légitime de la dispute savante. Ma conclusion est la conscience d’une économie encastrée dans la nature, et non simplement dans la société, redonne toute sa place à la question du luxe, à l’opposition bannie par Mandeville et Voltaire entre le luxe et le nécessaire.

The so-called Ricardian trade model of contemporary economic textbooks is not a rational reconstruction of Ricardo's famous numerical example in chapter seven of the Principles. It differs from the latter in terms of the definition of the four numbers, relevant cost comparison, rule for specialisation, assumptions and theoretical implications. Thus, the widespread critique regarding the unrealistic assumptions of the textbook trade model does not apply to Ricardo's original proof of comparative advantage.

Se, come è vero e come Marx dimostra, una certa rendita, molto bassa, sta anche sulle terre dei "latifondi", lo Stato riformatore acchiapperebbe sempre un qualcosa (come dimostrammo altra volta, con le cifre dell'agricoltura nazionale, una miseria) ma alla condizione di mettersi a fare il rentier mantenendo i già esistenti capitalisti agrari, ossia i nostrali affittaiuoli e fermiers, i fittatori di Campania, i gabellotti di Sicilia, gli industrianti di campagna (termine teoricamente impeccabile) di Calabria, che potrebbero pagare il canone redditiero traendolo dal sopralavoro dei contadini braccianti. Ricardo, stoico ma non cinico (come i filibustieri in circolazione), avrebbe fatto così.

Tirando fuori invece la formula sciagurata della parcellazione ai contadini, la coglioneria iperbolica di un'agricoltura feudale e non passata, tra le prime del mondo, al pieno modo borghese di gestione, non si è fatto che distruggere la magra rendita assoluta che non ripartisce tra i contadini proprietari altro che la condanna ad erogare doppie ore di lavoro per grano da campare e rate da pagare, dato e fin quando non fuggano dal lotto. Quanto alle pingui rendite differenziali, esse restano sacrosante, a disposizione del capitale della Speculazione italiana, che se per principio detesta l'investimento agrario, tanto meno lo avrebbe fatto mai nella "terra peggiore", ove invece bisognava portarlo, la corda al collo, a calci nel sedere.

Klasik iktisat; genellikle ilk modern iktisadi düşünce okulu olarak kabul edilir. Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo ve John Stuart Mill, bu düşünce okulunu geliştiren iktisatçılar arasındadır. Adam Smith'in Ulusların Zenginliği kitabı genellikle klasik iktisadın başlangıcı olarak kabul edilir.

(Δημοσιεύθηκε στην ΕΠΙΘΕΩΡΗΣΗ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΩΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΩΝ, τεύχος 6, 2004,σελ. 103 – 128). Περίληψη. Στο κείμενο αυτό, μέσω λογικής και μεθοδολογικής ανάλυσης της ιστορίας της προμαρξικής πολιτικής οικονομίας, επιχειρείται συνοπτικά η ανάδειξη των νομοτελειών και των αντιφάσεων που διέπουν την δημιουργία των προϋποθέσεων, την πρωταρχική εμφάνιση και την διαμόρφωση της οικονομικής επιστήμης, την κίνηση της σκέψης από το εξωτερικό στο εσωτερικό, από την επιφάνεια στην ουσία του αντικειμένου, την ανάβαση της νόησης από το αισθητηριακά συγκεκριμένο στο αφηρημένο. Η προσέγγιση αυτή καθιστά εφικτή την θεωρητική περιοδολόγηση της ιστορίας της πολιτικής οικονομίας λαμβάνοντας ως βάση την αλλαγή και την ανάπτυξη του εννοιολογικού και κατηγοριακού συστήματός της, τη μέθοδο. Η κλασική αστικής σκέψη εξετάζεται εδώ ως ιστορικά συγκεκριμένο όλο (δεδομένης της ποικιλομορφίας και περιπλοκότητάς του) απόψεων περί οικονομίας, πολιτικής, κοινωνικής φιλοσοφίας και θεωρίας της γνώσης. Η συγκεκριμένη ιστορική προσέγγιση της κρισιακής γνωσιακής συγκυρίας της αστικής πολιτικής οικονομίας, επιτρέπει την ανάδειξη ενός φάσματος διαφόρων τάσεων: αφ' ενός μεν προς διάλυση της επιστήμης και της ίδιας της ορθολογικότητας, αφ' ετέρου δε, προς αναβάθμιση της πολιτικής οικονομίας της κεφαλαιοκρατίας στο επίπεδο της ωριμότητάς της, στο επίπεδο της συστηματικής θεωρητικής αντανάκλασης του αντικειμένου (του συστήματος των κεφαλαιοκρατικών σχέσεων παραγωγής) μέσω εννοιών και κατηγοριών, σε μια σύνθεση πολλών προσδιορισμών, που εκπροσωπούν την ενότητα ποικίλων πλευρών. Abstract. Abstract. In this text, In this text, an an attempt is made through logical and through logical and methodological analysis of the history of pre-Marxist political methodological analysis of the history of pre-Marxist political economy, economy, to bring out briefly the the laws and contradictions laws and contradictions of the of the beginning, the emergence and the formation of economic science, beginning, the emergence and the formation of economic science, the movement from the external to the internal, from the surface to the movement from the external to the internal, from the surface to the essence of the object (of the subject matter), the the essence of the object (of the subject matter), the ascent of of cognitive thinking cognitive thinking from the sensual-concrete to the abstract. Such. Such an approach an approach makes it possible to outline the theoretical periodization of the history of political economy the history of political economy, , in accordance with in accordance with the changing and developing system of concepts and the changing and developing system of concepts and categories, in , in accordance with the method. The classical bourgeois thinking is accordance with the method. The classical bourgeois thinking is regarded here as a historically concrete whole (in all its multiformity regarded here as a historically concrete whole (in all its multiformity
Λέξεις – κλειδιά:
ιστορία της επιστήμης, φιλοσοφία της επιστήμης, λογική, μεθοδολογία, έννοιες, κατηγορίες, διαλεκτική, πολιτική οικονομία.
Keywords:
History of science, Philosophy of science, Logic, Methodology, Concepts, Categories, Dialectics, Political Economy.
Journal of Economic Literature (J.E.L.) Classification System
B - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology
B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925
B4 - Economic Methodology
B12 – Classical
B14 - Socialist; Marxist
B51 - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
P16 - Political Economy


THE DEWEY DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
100 PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY

Πολιτική οικονομία, Ιστορία της οικονομικής σκέψης, Ιστορία και Φιλοσοφία της επιστήμης, Λογική και Μεθοδολογία.


ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ: επιστημολογική τοποθέτηση του προβλήματος .
1. Η διαμόρφωση των προϋποθέσεων της επιστήμης. Οι απόψεις των μερκαντιλιστών.
2. Η μετάβαση στην εξέταση των  εσωτερικών συναφειών και στον διαμελισμό μεμονωμένων πλευρών του αντικειμένου ως πρωταρχική εμφάνιση της επιστήμης.
Οι πρώτες «ανατομικές» προσεγγίσεις του αντικειμένου από τους «πατριάρχες» της αστικής πολιτικής οικονομίας W. Petty  και P. Boisguillebert.
Η εμβάθυνση της γνώσης: (W. Petty) στροφή προς την εξέταση μαζικών, στατιστικά παρατηρούμενων πλευρών και διαδικασιών του αντικειμένου, από την σκοπιά των ποσοτικών τους συσχετίσεων, της ποσοτικής προσδιοριστίας τους.
3. Η συστηματοποίηση της γνωστικής διαδικασίας και της γνώσης από την διάνοια ως διαμόρφωση της επιστήμης.
α)Μια απόπειρα συστηματοποίησης της γνωστικής διαδικασίας και των αποτελεσμάτων της στην βάση ενός κατ’ εξοχήν αποφατικού προσδιορισμού της ουσίας (το σύστημα του Sir James Steuart).
β)Το σύστημα των φυσιοκρατών.
γ)Το σύστημα του A. Smith.
δ)Το σύστημα D.Ricardo.
ε)Η μικροαστική κριτική (βλ. Simonde  de Sismondi) – προτροπή για οπισθοδρομικό ουτοπικό περιορισμό της προόδου. Οι μεταρικαρντιανοί που πρεσβεύουν την οπτική του προλεταριάτου (Hodgskin Th.,Pavenstone P.). Οι τελευταίοι εκπρόσωποι της κλασικής πολιτικής οικονομίας (Sir George Ramsay και Richard Jones) διερευνούν τον ιστορικό χαρακτήρα του αντικειμένου.
4.  Η απολυτοποίηση της εξωτερικής προσέγγισης του αντικειμένου και της έρευνας ως καταστροφή της επιστήμης. Η αγοραία αστική πολιτική οικονομία. Ο Μαρξ διέκρινε αυστηρά τα «ιδεολογικά συστατικά στοιχεία της κυρίαρχης τάξης» από την «ελεύθερη πνευματική παραγωγή του δεδομένου κοινωνικού σχηματισμού» (Μαρξ Κ., Θεωρίες της υπεραξίας, μέρ. ΙΙ, σ.131). Στα πρώτα κατέτασσε τους «ιδεολόγους», οι οποίοι «κάνουν κύρια πηγή των εσόδων τους την επεξεργασία της ψευδαίσθησης που έχει αυτή η τάξη για τον εαυτό της» (Μαρξ Κ., Ένγκελς Φ. Η γερμανική ιδεολογία, τ. Ι, σ.94).
4. Η κλασική αστική σκέψη ως ιστορικά συγκεκριμένη εσωτερική ενότητα  πολιτικών, κοινωνικο - φιλοσοφικών, πολιτικο - οικονομικών και γνωσιοθεωρητικών - μεθοδολογικών αντιλήψεων.
5.O Hegel και το γίγνεσθαι της επιστημονικής νόησης.
6. Η  διαδικασία του γίγνεσθαι και της ανάπτυξης της υποκειμενικής πλευράς της επιστημονικής νόησης.
Ενδεικτική βιβλιογραφία

Marx’s critique of David Ricardo represents a topic that has often been debated. The same cannot be said of his criticism of Samuel Bailey, which has for a long time remained in the shade . One only needs to look at the number of pages that Marx dedicates to Bailey in the section of Theories of Surplus-Value about the Dissolution of Ricardian School and the conspicuous number of quotations in Capital, Volume One, to see that it is difficult to underestimate Bailey’s role in Marx’s presentation [Darstellung]. My aim in this paper is not to reconstruct the role of the works of Samuel Bailey in the development of Marx’s critique of political economy from a historical point of view. My aim is rather a theoretical one, that is, to show that Ricardo and Bailey represent two fundamental moments of Marx’s presentation. “Moment” is here used in a non-generic sense: what I wish to highlight is that as they are presented in Marx’s critique of political economy, Ricardo’s and Bailey’s theories of value represent two opposite and contradictory sides of the category of value. Building on the work of Hans Georg Backhaus, who claims that the first chapter of Capital, Volume One, can only be understood as a metacritique of Bailey’s critique of Ricardo, I intend to develop this topic in order to further clarify the connection of critique and presentation, which Marx famously mentions in a well known letter to Lassalle.

En esta investigación se busca contrastar la hipótesis de que el tipo de cambio real efectivo entre los sectores manufactureros de España y el de sus socios de la Unión Europea se encuentra regulado, en el periodo 2000-2014, por los costos laborales unitarios verticalmente integrados relativos y las diferencias intrasectoriales de la tasa de ganancia. Utilizando técnicas de cointegración en datos de panel, los resultados apuntan a que entre las tres variables existe una relación estable en el largo plazo. De igual manera, los vectores de cointegración indican que la posición competitiva de los sectores manufactureros españoles está asociada de forma positiva con la disminución de los costos unitarios de producción, en tanto que se relaciona de forma negativa con el incremento de la brecha de rentabilidad intrasectorial.

With the famous numerical example of chapter 7 of the Principles (1817) David Ricardo intended to illustrate first and foremost the new proposition that his labor theory of value does not regulate the price of international transactions when the factors of production are immobile between countries. Unfortunately, later scholars have often omitted this proposition when referring to Ricardo's numerical example. Instead, they have highlighted only the comparative-advantage proposition, although Ricardo considered it as a corollary of the omitted proposition and therefore inextricably linked to it. This inexplicable omission has led to an incomplete understanding of the logical construction of Ricardo's numerical example, as well as to the misinterpretation of the four numbers as unitary labor costs. With an accurate understanding of Ricardo's numerical example and the logical relationship between the two propositions it meant to prove, it is relatively easy to refute the main objections that have been raised against the very same numerical example in the past. Moreover, it reaffirms the sustained relevance of Ricardo's two propositions as important insights for understanding the current process of economic globalization.

El objetivo de este trabajo es examinar el vínculo entre la teoría monetaria de Marx y su explicación del valor, la producción y la circulación. Para ello expone los elementos teóricos básicos que permiten abordar una crítica de la teoría cuantitativa, la concepción chartalista de la génesis del dinero y la teoría poskeynesiana del dinero endógeno. Luego analiza desde una perspectiva marxista la controvertida relación entre la monetización de deuda pública y el aumento del nivel general de precios.