Auricoin Money-Theoretical Foundation

Money: Auricoin-RIC money

Auricoin money: RIC-RICs.
Auricoin money pennies: RICOS
Reference value of Auricoin money: $ 888.88 USD
Merchandise: Goods and Services

What is an Economic Theory?

Concept
It is the study, through models, of the way in which economic agents, as rational individuals, make their decisions under
conditions of scarcity and faced with different alternatives, and the way in which these decisions affect other economic
agents.
Through the development and testing of models with reality, economic theory tests hypotheses, which are nothing more
than predictions about the behavior of certain variables in the face of movements or variations in others. A model is a
simplified representation of reality, which means that it is necessary to make the important decision of identifying the
most important variables that influence a model and to study the mechanism or way in which they affect the studied
variable.
The starting point is the idea that individuals rationally decide on rules of behavior, rules such as maximizing their
utility if they are consumers or maximizing their profits if they are producers, trying to achieve them. Generally,
individuals are faced with possible alternatives and are subject to restrictions that they must take into consideration in
their decision making, since, as human and material resources are limited, using them for one purpose necessarily
implies renouncing to use them for another, i.e., individuals must take into consideration the opportunity cost of their
economic decisions.
Economic theory studies precisely how agents optimize their behavior when faced with the possible alternatives with
which they can achieve their ends. Positive statements are derived from this type of study, which are those statements or
hypotheses that can be contrasted with reality in order to determine the veracity or falsity of the information on the
behavior of economic agents, and normative statements, which, however, are not scientific predictions but value
judgments about the goodness or harm that can be derived from a hypothesis. It is a matter of confronting the world of
being, positive judgment, with the world of how things should be, in terms of goodness, social justice, etc., i.e.,
statements of a normative nature. Normative statements are not true or false, they are simply opinionated. Economic
Theory places its emphasis on positive analysis, which must also be a basic argumentative support for normative
analysis, since, in the fortunate expression of Joan Robinson, Economic Theory is the toolbox of all economists.
The type of approach used by economic analysis or Economic Theory is the positive one, when an economic fact is
examined with the instruments of economic analysis, without assessing the convenience of that situation or the
desirability or otherwise of its consequences. But economists also have their opinions as citizens and can make value
judgments, and it is desirable that they make it explicit that this is their opinion.
In any case, it is important to recognize when it is someone's personal opinion and when it is a positive and academic
statement (and therefore refutable when contrasted with reality), i.e., to distinguish that statements can be, on the one
hand, normative, if value judgments are made on a certain economic issue, and in this case the values and opinions of
the person making the analysis come into play, and on the other hand, it can be a statement that can be contrasted with
reality when it has a positive approach. On many occasions, the confusion between both approaches has led to a certain
discredit to Economics as a Science.
Economic theory basically serves to make predictions. Undoubtedly, starting from simple models and more or less
elementary starting assumptions that try to capture the reality of the type (consumers try to maximize their utility,
producers try to maximize their profits, etc.) and through models that become more sophisticated, as they include more
variables and a greater number of relationships between them, a mathematical representation of a behavior or
phenomenon is reached through Economic Theory.
By playing with the variables of the model we can make predictions about the behavior of consumers, companies, etc.
With the help of statistics and econometrics we can measure the power of our model and its explanatory capacity, since
scientific theories, and Economic Theory is no exception, are contrasted with reality through observation.
As in other branches of knowledge, in this process of continuous learning, theories are refined, improved and replaced,
and Economics is built as a Science.
 Clarification

In our opinion, the work we present below can be applied to Auricoin money, since it is the only monetary cone which
in our opinion really has the necessary characteristics and conditions for it to develop perfectly and in a natural way its
three functions: Medium of Exchange, Unit of Account and Value Deposit, which is the duty of money. It is impossible,
according to our appreciation, to apply it to other monetary cones which have been used or are used at present, better
known as: Gold Standard Money, Gold Dollar Standard Money, Fiat or fiduciary money. Since none of these monetary
cones, meet the qualities, conditions, nor possess the necessary characteristics to be classified as money.
According to Macroeconomics, for a thing to be classified as money, it has to develop three functions perfectly and
naturally: Unit of Account, Deposit of Value and Medium of Exchange.
But in our opinion, it is not only that it is said that it possesses them, but that these necessarily develop, since according
to our understanding, they must form the unity of this (of money) and must be found within its Unity intertwined among
themselves, and for themselves, harmoniously united and balanced and inseparable, without any contradiction between
them. These functions developed by money must be very well analyzed, since the function given to the monetary cones
that have been used and are used at present of being a Deposit of Value, is very different from what for our criterion
must be the function of being a Deposit of Value of money.
For the money to develop to perfection its three functions, it is necessary to provide it with a series of characteristics,
which only the thing that is used as money must possess, among the most relevant characteristics that the thing must
possess in order to be classified as money, we can name the following:
Stable, Neutral, Durable, Resistant, Divisible, Easy to Use, Easy to Store, Easy to Transport, that it is not Scarce and
that its use is totally free. So that it develops in a natural way its objective within the economy, which is none other than
to be a Measure of Value of Goods and Services.
For the aforementioned reasons, money in itself cannot be a GOOD, nor can it be classified as a SERVICE, since it is
not the product of work, therefore, it lacks its own value, by itself and for itself, since the referential value it possesses
is only so that it can be used as a Unit of Account. It has value when people deposit their goods and services in it, who
really gives value to Auricoin money are the people, and they do it when they exchange their goods or services in
exchange for Auricoin money, but they do not belong to it (to Auricoin money), but to the people, which makes it a
Deposit of Value, a Guardian, a Custodian of those values that people deposit in it.
This makes money: a financial good for people; an intermediary in the exchange of goods and services for people; a
service provider for people; a guardian of values of goods and services for people; and it also lends its voice to people,
so that they can use it to put a price on goods and services, thus developing its objective in the economy, which is none
other than to be a Measure of Value of goods and services.
For the aforementioned reasons, and because Auricoin money is the only monetary cone in World Economic History,
which to date perfectly fulfills its three functions, of the duty to be of money and can be classified without any doubt as
MONEY. This means that this theoretical foundation that has been developed can only be applied to Auricoin money.
 

Introduction
Theoretical reflections on money have existed for at least two thousand five hundred years, and have been concerned
both with its definition stricto sensu (means of exchange accepted in a given space and time) and with a loose
description (everything that serves as a quantitative measure of value, to compare qualitatively diverse things).
There are, moreover, two general positions with respect to monetary history. On the one hand, the assumption that the
economy constantly carries analogous or comparable needs, that somehow there has always been a market, and that
current economic problems reflect similar issues to the old ones in a more developed or sophisticated way, which is
true.
Thus, money can easily be defined in functional terms, thinking that whenever there is exchange there is a function
called money, which consists of being an accepted medium for exchange (being a means of payment), being able to
store value and being the unit for calculating the price of things (which also implies being divisible into units with the
same value).
This functional notion of money is thought of as ahistorical, which, among other things, has been due to the search for
an essence, a nature, that could conceptually condense any of its uses, just as Plato in the fourth century B.C. or Kant in
1785 have done in some way. This first mode has also been a constant in many twentieth century economists who have
naturalized the market and functional money so overwhelmingly that they have created theories to try to endow the
money that has been used and that which is used today with characteristics that it does not possess, such as its
neutrality, referential value, etc.
On the other hand, it is possible to think of money as a historical category that represents value and, therefore, is in
permanent mutation, not only materially, but also conceptually. Already in Xenophon (Socratics) and Aristotle (EN;
Plt.) we can trace certain impulses towards this explanation of currencies from their uses and not abstractly. Outside the
functional definition, other characteristics that money acquired and lost over time become visible.
Since their birth, currencies have been shown as a replacement, a common denominator and a link between people and
the world. Because of its plenipotentiality, money has become something desired with the illusion of postponing the
moment of experience, increasing the pleasure of its possession, as a metaphor and abstraction of mere materiality.
Thus, money becomes a value in itself, worthy of being treasured and taken as an end, and it is, although there are
several theories that differ from this.
At the same time, since the 1970s, globalization and extreme financial speculation have led to the evaporation of
currency. For some time now, there has been talk of a process of "dematerialization" of money, although this term
should be qualified, inasmuch as the materiality of money is not what is at stake, but rather, the supports that give it
support and capacity for social existence or, why not say it, that what has been used as money throughout history,
although it is called money, is not really money.
This process has facilitated to a superlative degree its circulation and acceleration. The immense process of
bankarization and digitalization of economies brought about a virtualization of money and allowed private actors to
create and multiply it. However, it should always be remembered that this does not "dematerialize" currencies, since the
fact that they circulate through virtual channels (in the same way as information).
While it is true that the channels have become much lighter, the fiber optic cables and the servers on which the data are
housed belong to the physical order as much as any previous expression of value. However, the unprecedented
accumulation that is taking place in this late capitalist period cannot be thought of outside the concrete forms that
money and its circulation have taken.
In relation to the above, a latent hypothesis is that the distance between price and value has become increasingly blurred
and less apprehensible, to the extent that money has become a progressively more and more portable element, and less
tied to elements with exchange value and use value, since it has no fixed referential value, making it useless as a
measure of value, and when it loses this function, it ceases to be money. That is to say, that in spite of the progressive
passage towards monetary forms tending to the pure abstract representation of value (paper bills, credit cards, digital
money), it would have accompanied social and political processes that led to the acceptance of a less intense
correspondence between value and price.
Thus, in systems whose accepted bearers of value are measured in cattle, cocoa beans, salt or snail bracelets, the
relationship with the utility of the exchanged goods is at the center of the scene. The most classic example in this sense
is barter, where each item exchanged is taken simultaneously as a medium of exchange and an object of consumption.
In such cases, supply and demand are far below utility as measures for the valuation of a commodity. This leads us to
the conclusion that it was a mistake to use these monetary cones as money, since it brought to the economy the
economic aggregates so feared and harmful for all mankind.
On the other hand, the triumph of the market as an impersonal and efficient allocator of resources among people
imposed, together with its logic based on the laws of supply and demand, a total material decomposition of money into
elements less and less usable and more and more concentrated in the exchange function, the biggest mistake ever made
in the economy, which, additionally, did nothing more than distorting its true objective for the economy, which is none
other than to be a measure of value.
Auricoin money is a conventional creation that reflects or crystallizes modulations of social relations. It is, like the
Internet, a conceptual entity which, if it can exist without material supports and does not control, like it, the current way
of life of humanity. But while every human movement (and every click) is captured and analyzed, monetary circulation
remains invisible to the vast majority of people.
Today, only ten percent of the world's money is made up of bills and coins. The rest has a more ethereal existence,
which keeps it off the streets and allows its owners to handle it with greater discretion. In this paper, with a theoretical
foundation, we hope to make a contribution towards a reflection on the contemporary transformations of money,
through a permanent appeal to history and its concrete forms of money and prove that what is being used as money,
although we call it money, is not really money, because it cannot develop its objective in the economy as it should be, It
is rather the cause of introducing into the economy the economic aggregates that have been so detrimental to the
population in general, and it is these monetary cones that have caused the failure to achieve economic and social
development, directly responsible for the enormous and innumerable economic crises that the world economy has
suffered throughout its history.
Auricoin money re-establishes the true objective of money in the economy, creating for the first time in the world
economic history, a monetary cone, which contains all the necessary characteristics and conditions to develop in a
natural and perfect way its role within the economy, since its Unity is composed of its three functions, Unit of Account,
Deposit of Value and Medium of Exchange, and these are intertwined among themselves, and for themselves,
harmoniously united and inseparably balanced, without any contradiction among them, as is the duty of the thing used
as money.

Measurement of value

The first function of Auricoin money consists in providing the world of goods and services with the expression of its
values, or in representing the mercantile values as magnitudes of equal denomination, qualitatively equal and
quantitatively comparable. Thus Auricoin money functions perfectly as a general measure of values, and only by virtue
of this function it has a referential value of $ 888.88 USD.
Goods or services do not become commensurable because of Auricoin money. Conversely. Since all goods and
services, as values, objectified human labor, raw materials used, and therefore commensurable in themselves and for
themselves, can collectively measure their values in the same specific goods or services and this becomes their
collective measure of value, that is, in Auricoin money. As a measure of value, Auricoin money is the necessary form of
manifestation of the measure of value immanent to goods and services: the labor time and/or raw materials used. Or
why private labor cannot be treated as if it were directly social labor, as if it were its opposite.
The expression of the value of a commodity in Auricoin money is the following: RIC: x commodity A = y Auricoin
money, constitutes its money form or its price. An isolated equation, such as 1 ton of rice = 100 RIC, is now sufficient
to represent the value of rice in a way endowed with social validity. This equality no longer needs to march in formation
with the equations of value of the other goods or services, since the goods or services are equivalent, the RIC now
possesses the character of money. Therefore, the general relative form of the value of goods and services is here again
given the form of its original simple or singular relative form of value. On the other hand, the unfolded relative
expression of value, or the infinite series of relative expressions of value, becomes the specifically relative form of
money referential value. That series, however, is no longer socially given in the prices of commodities. Read backwards
the quotations of a price list and one will find the magnitude of value of Auricoin money, represented in all possible
commodities. Auricoin money, on the other hand, has no price at all. To participate in that unitary relative form of the
value of the other commodities, it would have to refer to itself, as to its own referential equivalent of $ 888.88 USD.
The price or money form of value characteristic of commodities is, like their form of value in general, an ideal or
figurative form, different from their real and palpable corporeal form. The value of rice, potatoes, cloth, clothes, etc.,
though invisible, exists in those things themselves; it will be represented by their equality with the RIC, by a relation to
their referential value of $888.88 USD, which, so to speak, is only as a thought going around in the heads.
Hence the custodian of the goods has to lend them his own language, or hang a label on them, in order to communicate
their prices to the outside world. As the expression of the mercantile values in RIC is ideal, the RIC that is used in this
operation is also purely figurative or ideal. Every guardian of merchandise knows that when he confers on these the
form of the price, or figurative golden form, he is far from having wrapped them in Auricoin money or in the referential
value of $888.88 USD, and that to appraise in RIC the millions of mercantile values, not a single bit of Auricoin money
is needed.
In its function as a measure of value, therefore, Auricoin money serves as purely figurative or ideal money. This
circumstance has given rise to the wildest theories. Although only figurative Auricoin money is used for the function of
measuring value, the price is strictly dependent on the referential money value. The value, i.e., the amount of human
labor contained in, say, a ton of rice, is expressed in a figurative amount of the RIC money reference value, which
contains the same amount of labor. According to the $ 888.88 USD, which provides the service as a measure of value.
Goods with determined prices are all represented in the following formula: a commodity A = x RIC; b commodity B = z
RIC; c commodity C = y RIC, etc., where a, b, c represent certain quantities of commodity classes A, B, C; x, z, y,
certain quantities of RIC.
The values of the commodities, then, are transformed into quantities of figurative RIC and of different magnitude, and,
therefore, in spite of the tangle of commodity bodies, into magnitudes of equal denomination, into magnitudes of RIC.
As such, these dissimilar quantities of RIC are compared and measured against each other, thus developing the need,
from the technical point of view, to link them all to a fixed quantity of RIC, which serves as a unit of measurement.
This unit of measurement itself continues to develop through its further division into aliquots, until it becomes a
standard of measurement, the RIC already possesses such standards in its referential value; so, for example, that a RIC
serves as a unit of measurement, and while on the one hand it is subdivided into rich, on the other hand 100,000 units of
rich are added up to form a RIC. In all circulation, therefore, the denominations of the pre-existing $888.88 USD
standard are also the original names of the money standard or price standard.
As a measure of values and as a price standard, Auricoin money performs two completely different functions. As a
measure of values, Auricoin money is the social embodiment of human labor, the standard of prices, such as the fixed
$888.88 USD. As a measure of value, money serves to transform into prices, into figurative quantities of RIC, the
values of the most varied commodities, as a measure of prices, it measures precisely those quantities of RIC.
For the price standard, it was necessary to fix a certain value to the RIC as a unit of measure. Here, as in all other
determinations of the measurement of quantities of the same denomination, the decisive factor is the fixity of the
measuring ratios. The price standard, therefore, fulfills its function perfectly as long as its value is invariable and the
same amount of RIC serves as the unit of measurement. If the ICR can serve as a measure of values, this is only
because it is not itself the product of labor and, therefore, potentially, does not possess a variable value.
It is clear, for one thing, that a change in the value of the RIC affects its function as a price standard. For this reason its
value is fixed, and immovable, so that the values of goods and services are always maintained in the same reciprocal
relation of value of the RIC. For it is something illogical, crazy that the value meter of the goods has a volatile
referential value, it would make it useless as a value meter.
Commodity prices can only rise across the board if the value of Auricoin money is held constant and commodity values
rise, and vice versa. The prices of goods can only fall in a generalized way if the value of Auricoin money does not vary
and the mercantile values fall. As can be seen, Auricoin money does not affect the value of the good or service
exchanged for it.
 Price form

The money denominations of metallic weights are gradually separating from their primitive ponderal denominations.
This is due to various reasons, of which the following are the historically decisive ones: 1) Creation of money using
gold and silver as a commodity. 2) Introduction of foreign money to less developed peoples; in ancient Rome, for
example, silver and gold coins first circulated as foreign commodities. The denominations of this foreign money
differed from the local denominations of pesos. As wealth develops, the less precious metal is displaced by the more
precious metal from the function of measuring value. Copper is displaced by silver, silver by gold, even though this
sequence contradicts all poetic chronology, Libra, for example, was the money name for an effective pound of silver.
As soon as gold displaced silver as a measure of value, the same name was attached to about 1/15, etc., of a pound of
gold, according to the relation of value between this metal and silver. Pound is now separated as a money name and as
the current weight denomination of gold. The counterfeiting of money by the princes, practiced for centuries, which of
the original weight of the monetary pieces left in fact only the name.
These historical processes transformed into a popular custom the divorce between the money name of the metallic
weights and their current weight denomination. Since the monetary standard is purely conventional on the one hand and
requires general validity on the other, it is eventually regulated by law. Officially a ponderal portion of the precious
metal, for example, the $ 888.88 USD, is divided in aliquots that receive legal names, as for example RIC, RICOS, etc.
This aliquot part, which then serves as an effective unit of monetary measure, is subdivided into other aliquot parts also
baptized with legal names, such as RICOS, etc. Certain reference values, as always, continue to be the standard of
Auricoin money. What has been modified with respect to this, is the subdivision and the nomenclature.
The prices, or the amounts of $ 888.88 USD into which the values of the goods are ideally transformed, are now
expressed in the money denominations, i.e. in Auricoin money or in the current account denominations of the gold
standard. Instead of saying, therefore, that a kilo of rice is equal to 0.000012 RIC, it will be said that it is equal to
0.000012 rich. One to another, the goods are thus said what they are worth, in their money names, and the Auricoin
money serves as money of account whenever it corresponds to fix a thing as value, and therefore to fix it under a money
form, that is to say in Auricoin money.
The name of a thing is entirely external to the nature of the thing. I know nothing of a person whose name I know is
Saul. Similarly, in the money denominations Auricoin, Ether, Bitcoin, Dollar, Euro, Peso, etc., all traces of the value
relationship vanish. The confusion around the secret meaning of these cabalistic signs becomes all the greater because
the money denominations express the value of the goods and, at the same time, of the money referential value. On the
other hand, value, unlike the variegated bodies that populate the world of commodities, has to develop until it assumes
that form which is proper to a thing and foreign to the concept, but also simply social.
The price is the monetary denomination of the labor objectified in the commodity. The equivalence between the
commodity and the quantity of Auricoin money whose name is the price of the former, is, therefore, a tautology, since
the relative expression of the value of a commodity is always and in general an expression of the equivalence between
two. Between the commodity and the referential value of Auricoin money. But if the price, as exponent of the
magnitude of value of the commodity, is exponent of the relation of exchange which mediates between it and Auricoin
money, it does not follow, conversely, that the exponent of its relation of exchange with Auricoin money is necessarily
exponent of its magnitude of value. Suppose that in 1 pound of rice and 0.00012 RIC, (approximately $1.06 USD) an
equal magnitude of socially necessary labor is represented. The (RIC) 0.00012 is the monetary expression of the
magnitude of value of the pound of rice, i.e. its price. Now, if circumstances permit to quote it at (RIC) or oblige to
price it at [0.00012], we will have that [RIC] 1 and [0.00012] will be too small or too large expressions of the
magnitude of value attained by the rice, but they will not for that reason cease to be prices of the same, since in the first
place they are its forms of value in Auricoin money, and in the second place exponents of its relation of exchange with
Auricoin money. Should the conditions of production, or the productive force of labor, remain unchanged, for the
reproduction of the pound of rice it will now be necessary to employ as much social labor time as before. This
circumstance does not depend on the will of the rice producer or of the other possessors of commodities. The magnitude
of the value of the commodity expresses, then, a necessary and immanent relation to the process of formation of the
commodity with the necessary time of labor. When the magnitude of value is transformed into price, this necessary
relation becomes manifest as the relation of exchange of a commodity with Auricoin money, existing apart from it. But
in this relation both the magnitude of the value of the commodity can be expressed, as well as the more or the less for
which in certain circumstances it can be alienated. Therefore, in the very form of the price is implicit the possibility of a
quantitative incongruity, of a divergence, between the price and the magnitude of the value. It is in no way a defect of
this form, but on the contrary it is this that makes it suitable to a mode of production in which the norm can only impose
itself as an average law which, in the midst of the lack of norms, acts blindly.
The form of price, however, not only admits the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value
and price, that is, between the magnitude of value and its own monetary expression, but it can also harbor a qualitative
contradiction, so that, even if Auricoin money is only the form of value that commodities take on, price ceases to be in
general the expression of value. Things which in themselves and for themselves are not commodities, as for example
conscience, honor, etc., can be put on sale by their possessors, thus adopting, thanks to their price, the mercantile form.
It is possible, then, that a thing may formally have a price without having value. The expression in Auricoin money
becomes here imaginary, as in certain mathematical magnitudes. On the other hand, the imaginary form of the price, as
for example the price of fiat money, which has no value because in it no human labor has been objectified, can contain
an effective relation of value or a relation derived from it.
Like the relative form of value in general, the price expresses the value of a commodity, say that of a ton of rice, by
establishing that a certain quantity of equivalent, for example 1.20 RIC, is directly exchangeable for the iron, but by no
means that, conversely, the rice is in turn directly exchangeable for the RIC. Consequently, for a thing to operate
effectively as exchange value, it cannot be a good, nor can it be a service, since it is impossible for it to be detached
from its natural corporeality. That a RIC becomes $ 888.88 USD, is purely figurative in real dollars, even if this
transubstantiation is more "bitter" than for the Hegelian "concept" the transition from necessity to freedom, or for a
lobster to break its old shell, or for Jerome, Father of the Church, to get rid of the old Adam. Along with its real figure,
for example, that of rice, the commodity can possess in the price an ideal figure of value or a figurative Auricoin
money, but it cannot be both real rice and real RICs. To fix its price, it is enough to equate it in figurative RICs. But it is
necessary to replace it by the referential value of the RIC so that it renders to its holder the service of general
equivalent. If the possessor of rice were to confront, for example, the possessor of a commodity of those consumed in
the great world and were to point out to him that the price of rice is the form of Auricoin money, our man of the world
would answer him like St. Peter to Dante in Paradise, once the latter had recited to him the formula of the articles of
faith:
"Assai bene è trascorsa
D'esta moneta già la lega e' l peso,
Ma dimmi se tu l'hai nella tua borsa".
("La ley y el valor de esta moneda están muy bien examinadas, pero dime, ¿la tienes en tu bolso?")
The form of the price implies the alienability of commodities for Auricoin money and the necessity of this alienation.
On the other hand, the $888.88 USD only performs the function of ideal measure of value, since in the process of
exchange it already runs as money. Hidden in the ideal measure of values, the Auricoin money thus lurks, hard and fast.

Circulation medium

The metamorphosis of merchandise

We have already seen that the process in which commodities are exchanged involves contradictory, mutually exclusive
relations. The development of the commodity does not suppress these contradictions, but engenders the form in which
they can move. This is, in general, the method by which real contradictions are resolved. It is a contradiction, for
example, that one body constantly falls upon another and with equal constancy distances itself from it. Ellipsis is one of
the forms of motion in which this contradiction is realized and at the same time resolved.
Insofar as the process of exchange transfers commodities from hands in which they are not use-values, to hands in
which they are use-values, we are dealing with a social metabolism. The product of one useful mode of labor replaces
that of another. As soon as it reaches the place where it serves as use value, it passes from the sphere of mercantile
exchange to that of consumption. Here, it is only the former that interests us. We must therefore examine the whole
process from the point of view of form, and thus only the change of form or the metamorphosis of commodities through
which social metabolism is mediated.
The absolutely defective conception of this formal change is due, leaving aside the lack of clarity about the very
concept of value, to the fact that every formal change of a commodity takes place in the exchange between two
commodities, one of which is current and the other money. If we stick only to this material aspect, to the exchange of
merchandise for RIC, we will lose sight of precisely what we should be observing, that is, what happens with form. We
will overlook the fact that the RIC, as a simple commodity, is not money, and that other commodities, in their prices,
refer to the RIC as their own money figure.
At the beginning commodities enter the exchange process without a bath of RIC, nor of sugar, as they were created.
This process gives rise to a splitting of the commodity into commodity and Auricoin money, an external antithesis in
which the former represents its immanent antithesis of use-value and value. In this antithesis commodities are opposed
as use-values to Auricoin money as exchange-value. On the other hand, both terms of the antithesis are commodities,
and therefore units of use-value and value. But this unity of different elements is represented inversely in each of the
two poles and reflects at the same time, therefore, the reciprocal relation that mediates between them. The commodity is
really use-value; its character of being value is manifested only in an ideal way in the price, which refers it to the
opposite term, to the RIC, as to its real figure of value. The material aureus, conversely, counts only as a material
concretion of value, as Auricoin money. Hence it really is exchange value. Its use-value becomes manifest only ideally
in the series of the relative expressions of value, in which it refers to the commodities which are opposed to it, as to the
realm of their real figures of use. These antithetical forms of commodities are the effective forms in which the process
of their exchange moves.
Let us now accompany any owner of goods, for example, an old acquaintance, the cloth weaver, to the stage where the
exchange process takes place, to the market. His commodity, 20 meters of cloth, has a certain price: 2 RICs. He
exchanges the cloth for (RICs) 2 and, an old-fashioned man, exchanges these in turn for a bible in folio, of the same
price. He alienates the cloth, which for him is nothing more than merchandise, bearer of value, for RICs, the figure of
value of the former, and again alienates this figure for another merchandise, the bible, which as an object for use will go
to the weaver's house and will satisfy there devout needs. The process of exchange of the commodity, then, takes place
through two opposing metamorphoses that at the same time complement each other: transformation of the commodity
into Auricoin money and its reconversion from Auricoin money into commodity. The phases in the metamorphosis of
commodities are, at the same time, transactions of the possessor of these: sale, or exchange of the commodity for
Auricoin money; purchase, exchange of Auricoin money for commodity, and unity of both acts: selling to buy.
Now, if the weaver weighs the final result of the transaction, he will see that he has in his hands, instead of cloth, a
bible: instead of his original merchandise, another of the same value, but of different utility. It is in that same way that
he appropriates his other means of life and production. From his point of view, the whole process merely mediates the
exchange between the product of his labor and the product of the labor of others, the exchange of products.
The process of exchange takes place, then, through the following change of form:
commodity-money-commodity
M-D-M
As far as its material content is concerned, the movement M - M is an exchange of commodity for commodity,
metabolism of social labor, in the result of which the process itself is extinguished.
M - D. First metamorphosis of the commodity, or sale. As I have indicated elsewhere, the leap that commodity value
makes from the body of the commodity to that of the RIC, is the mortal leap of the commodity. If it fails, it is not
precisely the commodity but its possessor who will be crushed. The social division of labor makes the work of such a
possessor as one-sided as his needs are multilateral. That is why his product is of no use to him except as exchange
value. But it happens that only with Auricoin money can it take the form of a socially valid general equivalent, and
Auricoin money is in someone else's wallet. In order to extract it from there, it is necessary that the commodity be first
of all use-value for the possessor of Auricoin money, and therefore that the labor expended on it has been in a socially
useful form, that is to say, accrediting itself as a link in the social division of labor.
The division of labor, however, is a natural organism of production, the threads of which have been woven and continue
to be woven behind the backs of the producers of commodities. The commodity is, perhaps, the product of a new mode
of labor, which seeks to satisfy a newly arisen need or to create, on its own initiative, a new one.
It may well happen that a particular labor activity, which yesterday was only one function among the many exercised by
the same commodity producer, becomes detached from this interconnection, becomes independent and, for that very
reason, sends its partial product independently, as an autonomous commodity, to the market. Circumstances may or
may not be ripe for this process of spin-off. Today the product satisfies a social need. Perhaps tomorrow it will be
displaced, in whole or in part, by a similar type of product. Although labor is also, like that of our weaver, a patented
link in the social division of labor, it is by no means sufficient to guarantee the use value of precisely his 20 meters of
cloth. If competing weavers have already saturated the social need for cloth which, like everything else, has its measure,
the product of our acquaintance will become excessive, superfluous and therefore useless. A gift horse has no teeth, but
he does not go to the market to make gifts. Let us suppose, however, that the use value of his product satisfies the
demands and that, consequently, the merchandise attracts the Auricoin money. But, we ask now, how much Auricoin
money? The answer is already anticipated in the price of the commodity, in the exponent of its magnitude of value. We
leave aside any purely subjective errors of calculation made by the possessor of commodities, which are corrected
immediately, objectively, in the market. The possessor must have employed in his product nothing more than the
average time of socially necessary labor. The price of the commodity, then, is only the monetary denomination of the
quantity of social labor objectified in it. But without the authorization of our weaver and behind his back, the traditional
conditions of production of textile activity enter into effervescence. What yesterday was undoubtedly the socially
necessary labor time for the production of a meter of cloth, today ceases to be so, as the holder of Auricoin's money can
see with all diligence when he sees the prices fixed by various competitors of our friend.
To his misfortune, there are many weavers in the world. Let us suppose, finally, that each piece of cloth available on the
market contains only socially necessary labor time. It may happen, however, that the sum total of those pieces contains
superfluously spent labor time. If the stomach of the market cannot absorb the total quantity of cloth at the normal price
of 0.00012 RIC per meter, this proves that an excessively large part of the social labor time as a whole was consumed in
the form of cloth manufacture. The result is the same as if each of the weavers had spent more labor time on his
individual product than was socially necessary. Here the saying that the just pay for the sinners applies. All the cloth
placed on the market counts as a single article; each piece, only as an aliquot part. And, in reality, the value of each
individual meter of cloth is nothing more than the material realization of the same socially determined amount of
homogeneous human labor.
As it is seen, the commodity loves Auricoin money, but "the course of true love never does run smooth" (the course of
true love is never gentle and serene). The quantitative structuring of the social organism of production, which presents
its membra disiecta (scattered members) in the system of the division of labor, is as naturally fortuitous as the
qualitative one. Our possessors of commodities discover, then, that the same division of labor which makes them
independent private producers, makes the process of production and their relations within that process independent of
themselves, and that the reciprocal independence between persons is complemented by a system of multilateral and
proper dependence on things.
The division of labor turns the product of labor into a commodity, and thus makes its transformation into Auricoin
money necessary. At the same time, it makes it fortuitous whether or not this transubstantiation is achieved. Here,
however, we must analyze the phenomenon in its pure state, thus presupposing its normal course. For the rest, if this
phenomenon takes place, purely and simply, if the merchandise is not unsaleable, then the change of form of the same
always takes place, even if, departing from the norm, in this formal change substance, that is, magnitude of value, may
have been lost or added.
To one possessor of merchandise, the RIC replaces his merchandise and to the other the merchandise replaces his RIC.
The sensible phenomenon is the change of hands, or location, of the merchandise and the RIC, of 20 meters of cloth and
0.00012 Auricoin, that is, their exchange. But what is the merchandise exchanged for? It is exchanged for its own
general figure of value. And what is the RIC exchanged for? For a particular figure of its use-value. Why does the RIC
confront as money the cloth? Because the price or money denomination of the cloth, (RIC) 0.00012, already refers it to
the referential value of the RIC to the $ 888.88 USD as Auricoin money. The alienation of the original mercantile form
is fulfilled by the sale of the merchandise, that is to say, at the moment when its use value really attracts the RIC, which
in its price only had a figurative existence. Therefore, the realization of the price, or of the only ideal form of value of
the commodity, is at the same time, and conversely, realization of the only ideal use-value of Auricoin money; the
transformation of the commodity into Auricoin money is, at the same time, the simultaneous transformation of Auricoin
money into commodity. This unique process is a process that has two aspects: from the pole of the possessor of
commodity, sale, from the opposite pole, occupied by the possessor of Auricoin money, purchase.
Or in other words, selling is buying; M - D is at the same time D - M
So far we know of no economic relation between men except that which exists between possessors of commodities, a
relation in which the latter can only appropriate the product of the labor of others by alienating those of their own.
Therefore, if one possessor of commodities can oppose another exclusively as possessor of Auricoin money, this is due
to one of two things: either because the product of his labor possesses by nature the money form, being therefore money
material $888.88 USD, etc., or because his own commodity has already shed its skin, having shed its original form of
use. For the $888.88 USD to function as Auricoin money, it must naturally enter through some point in the market. That
point is at its source of production, where, as a direct product of labor, it is exchanged for another labor product of
identical value. But from that moment on it represents already, and always, realized mercantile prices. Leaving aside the
exchange for merchandise at the source of production of the $ 888,88 USD, it is this, in the hands of every possessor of
merchandise, the alienated figure of his sold merchandise, product of the sale or of the first mercantile metamorphosis:
M - D. If the $888.88 USD became ideal Auricoin money or measure of value, this was due to the fact that all
commodities measured their values in $888.88 USD, thus turning it into the figurative counterpart of the figure of use
of them, into the figure that covers the value of the same.
The $888.88 USD becomes real Auricoin money because commodities, through their generalized alienation, turn it into
the effectively alienated or transformed figure of use of themselves, and therefore into their effective figure of value, to
become that chrysalis, which is only the uniform social material concretion of undifferentiated human labor. The
external aspect of Auricoin money, then, gives no margin for discovering of what kind was the commodity converted
into it. In its money form, the one has exactly the same appearance as the other. It may well be, therefore, that Auricoin
money is junk, but junk is not money. We want to suppose that $ 888.88 USD for which the weaver alienated his
merchandise, is the transmuted figure of a kilo of rice. The sale of cloth, M - D, is at the same time its purchase, D - M.
But as the sale of cloth, this process initiates a movement that leads to its opposite, the purchase of the bible; as the
purchase of cloth, it ends a movement that began with its opposite, the sale of cloth. M - D (cloth - Auricoin money),
this first phase of M - D - M (cloth - Auricoin money - bible), is at the same time D - M (Auricoin money - cloth), the
last phase of another movement M - D - M (rice - Auricoin money - cloth). The first metamorphosis of a commodity, its
transformation into Auricoin money from the mercantile form, is always, at the same time, a second metamorphosis,
opposed, of another commodity, its inverse transformation into commodity from the money form.
D - M. Second, 0 final, metamorphosis of the commodity: purchase. Being the alienated figure of all other commodities
or the product of their general alienation, Auricoin money is the absolutely alienable commodity. It reads backwards all
prices and is thus reflected in all the bodies of commodities, which are thus the material that is sacrificed so that
Auricoin money becomes a commodity. At the same time, the prices, the eyes with which the commodities cast tender
loving glances at it, indicate to Auricoin money the limits of its capacity for transformation, that is, its own quantity. As
the commodity disappears when it becomes Auricoin money, it is impossible to distinguish in it the manner in which it
has come into the hands of its possessor, or which commodity has been transformed into it. Non olet (it has no odor),
whatever its origin. If on the one hand it represents a sold commodity, on the other hand it represents a purchasable
commodity.
D - M, the purchase is at the same time, sale, M - D; the final metamorphosis of a commodity, therefore, is at the same
time the first metamorphosis of another commodity. For our weaver the vital career of his merchandise concludes with
the bible into which he has reconverted his (RICs). But the seller of bibles exchanges the (RICs) obtained from the
weaver for brandy. D - M, the final phase of M - D - M (cloth - Auricoin-money - bible) is at the same time M - D, the
first phase of M - D - M (bible - Auricoin-money - liquor). As the producer of goods supplies only a unilateral product,
he usually sells it in large quantities, while his multilateral needs force him to continually distribute the realized price,
or the sum of Auricoin money obtained, in numerous purchases. As we see, one sale leads to many purchases of
different goods. The final metamorphosis of a commodity thus constitutes a sum of first metamorphoses of other
commodities.
Now, if we examine the global metamorphosis of a commodity, for example, cloth, we will see first of all that it is
composed of two opposing movements that complement each other, M - D and D - M. These two opposing mutations of
the commodity are carried out in two antithetical social processes by the possessor of commodities, and are reflected in
two economic roles assumed by him, also opposing. As an active subject of sale he becomes a seller; as an agent of
purchase, a buyer. But, just as in every mutation of the commodity its two forms coexist, that of commodity and that of
Auricoin money, only that, at opposite poles, the same possessor of commodities confronts as seller another buyer and
as buyer another seller. Just as the same commodity passes successively through the two inverse mutations, from
commodity to Auricoin money and from Auricoin money to commodity, the same possessor of commodities plays
alternatively the roles of seller and buyer. These are not therefore fixed roles, but, within the framework of commodity
circulation, they constantly change persons.
The total metamorphosis of a commodity involves, in its simplest form, four extremes and three personæ dramatis
(acting persons). In the first place, the commodity confronts the Auricoin money as its figure of value, a figure which
from beyond, in the pocket of another, is a thing endowed with a forceful reality. The possessor of commodities, then, is
confronted by a possessor of Auricoin money. As soon as the commodity is transformed into Auricoin money, it passes
into its transitory form of equivalent, whose use value or content exists on the side here, in other bodies of commodities.
As the end of the first transformation of the commodity, Auricoin money is at the same time the starting point of the
second. In this way, the seller of the first act becomes a buyer in the second, being confronted here with a third
possessor of commodities as seller.
The two phases of inverse movement of the mercantile metamorphosis constitute a cycle: commodity form, stripping of
the mercantile form, return to it. Undoubtedly, the commodity itself is here antithetically determined. At the point of
departure it is not use-value for its possessor; at the point of arrival, use-value for him. Similarly, Auricoin money
presents itself first as an unalterable crystallization of value, into which the commodity becomes, and then dissolves as a
mere form of equivalent of the commodity.
The two metamorphoses that make up the cycle of a commodity constitute at the same time the partial and inverse
metamorphoses of two other commodities. The same commodity (cloth) inaugurates the series of its own
metamorphoses and closes the total metamorphosis of another commodity (rice). During its first transmutation, i.e. sale,
it plays these two roles in person. On the other hand, as a chrysalis of $ 888.88 USD, that is, in the state in which it
itself follows the path of all flesh, it brings to an end at the same time the first metamorphosis of a third commodity.
The cycle that describes the series of metamorphoses undergone by every commodity, then, is inextricably entangled
with the cycles of other commodities. The process as a whole is presented as commodity circulation.
Mercantile circulation differs not only formally, but essentially, from the direct exchange of products. Let us take a
simple retrospective look at what happened. The weaver, there is no doubt, has exchanged the cloth for the bible, his
own merchandise for that of others. But this phenomenon is only real for him. The bible diffuser, more fond of heat
than of cold, did not think that he exchanged his bible for cloth, just as the weaver does not suspect that he exchanged
his cloth for rice. B's merchandise substitutes A's merchandise, but A and B do not reciprocally exchange their
merchandise. It can happen, in fact, that A buys merchandise from B and B from A, but that special relation is in no
way conditioned by the general relations of mercantile circulation. On the one hand, it is noticed here, how the
exchange of goods sweeps away the individual and local barriers of the direct exchange of products and causes the
metabolism of human labor to develop. On the other hand, a whole series of social bonds of a natural nature unfolds,
not subject to the control of the people involved. The weaver can sell cloth only because the farmer has sold rice: if I
can sell bibles it is because the weaver sold the cloth; the distiller can sell brandy because the other has already sold the
water of eternal life, and so on.
Hence the process of circulation is not exhausted, as was the case with the direct exchange of products, in the change of
location, or of hands, to which use values are subject. Auricoin money does not disappear, even if it is finally
marginalized from the series of metamorphoses undergone by a commodity. It is invariably deposited at the points of
circulation that commodities leave free. Let us take as an example the global metamorphosis of the cloth (cloth -
Auricoin money - bible): first the cloth goes out of circulation, Auricoin money replaces it; then the bible goes out,
Auricoin money replaces it. The replacement of one commodity by another always leaves the money commodity in the
hands of a third party. Circulation constantly exudes Auricoin money.
Nothing could be more misguided than the dogma according to which the circulation of commodities implies a
necessary equilibrium between purchases and sales, since every sale is a purchase, and vice versa. If by this is meant
that the number of sales actually completed is equal to the number of purchases, we are faced with a trivial tautology.
But the point is that the seller brings his own buyer to the market. Sale and purchase are an identical act as a reciprocal
relation between two polar opposite persons: the possessor of commodities and the possessor of Auricoin money. They
configure two polar opposite acts, as actions of the same person. The identity of sale and purchase implies, therefore,
that the merchandise becomes useless when, thrown into the alchemical retort of circulation, it does not emerge from it
converted into Auricoin money, is not sold by the possessor of merchandise, and therefore is not bought by the
possessor of Auricoin money. This identity implies, moreover, that, if the process culminates properly, it constitutes a
point of rest, a period in the life of the commodity, a period which may last longer or shorter. Since the first
metamorphosis of the commodity is both sale and purchase, this partial process is at the same time an autonomous
process. The buyer has the commodity, the seller the Auricoin money, that is, a commodity that preserves a form
suitable for circulation, whether it appears early or late on the market. No one can sell without someone else buying.
But no one needs to buy immediately by the mere fact of having sold. Circulation breaks down the temporal, local and
individual barriers opposed to the exchange of commodities, and it does so precisely because it splits, in the antithesis
of selling and buying, the direct identity existing here between alienating the product of one's own labor and acquiring
the product of another's labor. The fact that the autonomously opposing processes form an internal unity also means that
their internal unity moves in the midst of external antitheses. If the external autonomization of aspects that are not
autonomous internally, and they are not autonomous because they complement each other, is prolonged to a certain
extent, the internal unity breaks through violently, imposes itself by means of a crisis. The antithesis immanent to the
commodity, use value and value, private labor which at the same time has to present itself as directly social labor,
specific and concrete labor which at the same time counts only as general and abstract, personification of the thing and
reification of persons, this immanent contradiction, adopts its most evolved forms of movement in the antitheses of
mercantile metamorphosis. These forms entail the possibility, but only the possibility, of crises. For this possibility to
develop, becoming a reality, a whole set of conditions is required that do not yet exist, in any way, on the plane of the
simple circulation of commodities Say, for example, basing himself on the fact that he knows that the commodity is a
product, arrogates to himself the right to rule on crises. Which will be discarded when this monetary cone enters into
circulation, since they disappear from the economy, when using this monetary cone, since its unit is composed of its
three functions, which makes it totally neutral. The urgency for the economy to use the Auricoin money is palpable,
because as long as a monetary cone is used that is devalued or economic aggregates enter the economy, there will
always be someone who will pay for the broken dishes and in the case of money, the one who owns it.
As a mediator in mercantile circulation, Auricoin money assumes the function of a medium of circulation.

The course of money

The change of form in which the exchange of substances between the products of labor M - D - M takes place,
determines that the same value, as a commodity, configures the starting point of the process, and returns as a
commodity to the same point. Therefore, this movement of commodities is a cycle. On the other hand, this same form
excludes the cycle of Auricoin money. Its result is the constant departure of Auricoin money from its starting point, not
its return to it. As long as the seller retains the transmuted figure of his commodity, i.e. Auricoin money, the commodity
is in the phase of its first metamorphosis, or has only left behind him the first half of its circulation. When the process of
selling to buy is completed, the Auricoin money has again escaped from the hands of its original possessor. Surely, if
after buying the bible the weaver sells cloth once again, the Auricoin money will return to his hands. But it does not
return through the circulation of the first 20 meters of cloth, which, on the contrary, made it pass from the hands of the
weaver to those of the bible seller. If it returns, it is only because the same process of circulation is renewed or
reiterated for each new commodity, and ends in this case, as in the previous ones, with the same result. The form
directly imparted to Auricoin money by mercantile circulation, then, consists in its constant departure from its point of
departure, its passage from the hands of one commodity holder to those of another, or its course (currency, cours de la
monnaie).
The course of Auricoin money shows a constant and monotonous repetition of the same process. The commodity is
always on the side of the seller, the Auricoin money always on the side of the acquirer, as a means of purchase. It acts
as a means of purchase by realizing the price of the merchandise. And in realizing it, he transfers the merchandise from
the hands of the seller to those of the buyer, while he himself moves, at the same time, away from the hands of the
buyer and into those of the seller, and then repeats the same process with another merchandise. The fact that this
unilateral form of movement of Auricoin money arises from the formal bifacetic movement of the merchandise, is
concealed. The very nature of mercantile circulation causes the opposite appearance. The first metamorphosis of the
commodity is not only visible as a movement of Auricoin money, but as a movement of the commodity itself: on the
contrary, its second metamorphosis is only visible as a movement of Auricoin money. In the first half of its circulation,
the commodity changed places with Auricoin money. In this way, and at the same time, its figure of use was
marginalized from circulation, it passed into the realm of consumption. It was replaced by its figure of value, or larva of
Auricoin money. The second half of the circulation no longer runs through it wrapped in its own natural skin, but in that
of the $888.88 USD. With this, the continuity of the movement falls entirely on Auricoin money, and the same
movement that supposes two opposing processes for the commodity, always implies, as a movement proper to Auricoin
money, the same process, that is, its change of place with another ever-changing commodity. The result of the
circulation of commodities, the substitution of one commodity for another, appears mediated, then, not by the very
change of form undergone by them, but by the function of Auricoin money as a means of circulation; it makes
commodities circulate, in themselves and for themselves devoid of movement, transferring them, always in the opposite
direction to their own course, from the hands of those for whom they are not use-values, to the hands of those who
consider them use-values. It constantly removes commodities from the sphere of circulation, by occupying again and
again the places they leave vacant in it, thus itself moving away from its point of departure. Consequently, although the
movement of Auricoin money is only an expression of the circulation of commodities, the latter is presented,
conversely, as a mere result of the movement of money.
On the other hand, if Auricoin money has the function of means of circulation, this is due solely to the fact that it is the
value, made autonomous, of commodities. Therefore, its movement as a means of circulation is, in reality, nothing more
than the formal movement of the former. Hence this latter movement must be reflected, even in a sensible way, in the
course of Auricoin money. The double change of form of the commodity is reflected in the change of location, also
double, of the same piece of money, as long as we consider the global metamorphosis of a commodity in the repeated
repetition of its change of place; as long as we consider in its interconnection the interweaving of the innumerable
metamorphoses. The same pieces of money arrive as an alienated figure of the commodity in the hands of the seller and
leave them as an absolutely alienable figure of the commodity. Both times Auricoin money operates in the same way, as
a means of purchase first of one, then of the other commodity. But for the same commodity, the internal connection of
both processes is made manifest in the double and antithetical movement impressed on the same money pieces. The
same RICs 0.00012 that in the purchase of the cloth passed from the pocket of the rice grower to that of the cloth
weaver, migrate from the latter pocket when the purchase of the bible is made. This is a double change of location and,
if we consider the cloth or its representatives as the center, a change in the opposite direction: positive in the case of the
inflow of Auricoin money, negative in the case of its outflow. When, on the contrary, only unilateral metamorphoses of
commodities, mere sales or simple purchases, as you will, are operated, the same Auricoin money changes only once of
location. Its second change of location always expresses the second metamorphosis of the commodity, its reconversion
into Auricoin money.
For the rest, it is understood of course that all this only applies to the form we are considering, that of simple mercantile
circulation.
In taking its first step in circulation, in changing its form for the first time, every commodity is marginalized from it,
into which new commodities are constantly entering. As a means of circulation, on the contrary, Auricoin money is
permanently installed in the sphere of circulation and moves in it without pause. The question then arises as to how
much Auricoin money constantly absorbs this sphere. Could the sphere of circulation be fulfilled if Auricoin money
obtained its referential value at the money table? Not at all, because in doing so it loses its function of being a reliable
and fair measure of value.
In a country numerous unilateral metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, mere sales, on the one hand, and
simple purchases, on the other, take place every day, simultaneously and therefore juxtaposed in space. In their prices,
commodities are already equated with certain figurative quantities of Auricoin money. Now, since the form of direct
circulation, here considered, always brings commodity and Auricoin money tangibly face each other, the one at the pole
of sale, the other at the opposite pole, that of purchase, the mass of means of circulation required for the process of
circulation in the mercantile world is already determined by the sum of the prices at which commodities are exchanged.
Strictly speaking, Auricoin money only represents in a real way the sum of $888,88 USD already expressed ideally in
the sum of the prices reached by those goods.
Hence we take for granted the equality of these sums. We know, however, that, at constant values of commodities, their
prices no longer vary together with the RIC value (of the money material): it will no longer rise proportionally to the
fall of the latter, nor will it fall when the latter rises, since by giving the referential value anchored to the past to
Auricoin money it remains fixed, which means that this does not happen in the economy. If the sum of the prices
attained by commodities increases or decreases, the mass of circulating Auricoin money will have to increase or
decrease in equal proportion. It is true that the variation operating in the mass of the means of circulation will recognize
its origin in Auricoin money itself, but not in its role as a means of circulation, but in its function of measuring value.
When money does not possess a fixed referential value, the price of commodities varies in inverse ratio according to the
money reference value, in a fluctuating currency market (buying and selling of currencies), the mass of means of
circulation is modified in direct proportion to the price of commodities. An identical phenomenon would occur if, for
example, instead of decreasing the price of the RIC, it were replaced as a measure of value by the value of the RIC on
the market, or if instead of increasing the reference value of the RIC, the foreign exchange market were to displace it,
and it would be the latter that would exercise the function of measuring value, what makes that it affects all the values
that were exchanged for this one, from the value of our friend the seller of cloth, already that value is modified, what
makes this system of the reference value of the value meter exposed to a market, loses totally its objective in the
economy of value measurement.
The current value meters (fiat money), lacking a fixed reference value, have brought dire consequences to the economy,
and therefore to people's lives. These are responsible for the entry of economic aggregates into the economy, as well as
for the appearance in the economy of what we call black holes, which is nothing more than the disappearance from the
economy of the values deposited in these monetary cones. The irony of the case is that whenever an economic crisis
appears, politicians and foreign circumstances are always pointed out as responsible, ignoring that what produces the
crisis is the type of money that is used, and if we want to point out those responsible, although as incredible as it may
seem, there are, and they are none other than the productive sectors, since they are the ones who introduced these
monetary cones in the economy and they do so when they accept them in exchange for their goods and services. It is
incredible the application in this case of the Law of Cause and Effect, they introduce in the economy these types of
money and they are the first to feel its effects, since the economic crises begin when the productive sectors begin to
collapse. In other words, every crisis begins with the bankruptcy of the productive sector. That is how things are, as the
famous journalist Oscar Yanes would say.
In both cases the value of the money material would have been modified, that is, of the thing that functions as a measure
of values, and therefore the expression corresponding to the prices of mercantile values, and therefore the mass of
circulating money that serves for the realization of those prices. We have seen that the sphere of mercantile circulation
presents an orifice, that of the currency market, in a word, the material of fiat or fiduciary money as a commodity of a
given value. This value is presupposed in the function that money plays as a measure of value, and therefore in the
fixing of prices. Now, if the value of the measure of values falls, this will manifest itself above all in the fact that the
prices of commodities, which are exchanged directly for the referential value dictated by the market, as commodities,
will vary.
Particularly in the less developed stages of bourgeois society, for a long time to come a large part of other commodities
will continue to be valued according to the old-fashioned, now illusory value of the measure of value. However,
through the value relationship that mediates between the two, one commodity contaminates the other, the golden or
silver prices of the commodities are gradually leveled out according to the proportions determined by their own values,
until, in conclusion, All market values are estimated at the new money market value. This leveling process is
accompanied by the incessant increase in the fluctuation of the foreign exchange market, which flows in to replace the
goods exchanged directly by them. To the same extent, then, that the readjustment of commodity prices is generalized,
or that their values are estimated according to the new lower and/or higher value of money, up to a certain point even
diminishing, it also has the additional monetary mass that is required to realize said values.
The unilateral analysis of the events that followed the discovery of the new gold and silver deposits, led in the 17th
century, and especially in the 18th, to the erroneous conclusion that prices had increased because the quantity of gold
and silver was greater. which functioned as a means of circulation. Henceforth it is assumed that the value of gold is
given, as in fact it is at the time prices are established.
Under this assumption, then, the mass of the means of circulation is determined by the sum of the prices to be realized
of the merchandise. If we suppose, moreover, that the price of each class of merchandise is already given, it is obvious
that the sum of the prices reached by the merchandise will depend on the mass of these that is in circulation. It is not
necessary to rack your brains to understand that if 1 kilo of rice costs (00000.12 RIC), 100 kilos of rice will cost (12
RIC) 200, kilos (24 RIC) 400, etc., and that, therefore, at the pair of the mass of rice will have to increase the mass of
money that, in the sale, changes places with the cereal.
If we assume that the mass of the goods is given, that of the circulating Auricoin money will grow or decrease
according to the oscillations experienced by the prices of the goods. It increases or decreases because the sum of the
prices of the merchandise rises or falls as a result of the changes that take place in their prices. For this to happen, it is
not necessary at all for the prices of all commodities to increase or decrease simultaneously. The rise in the prices of a
certain number of decisive articles is sufficient in the one case, or the fall in their prices in the other, to increase or
decrease the sum of the prices to be realized of all the commodities in circulation, and by so much to release more or
less Auricoin money into circulation. Whether the change in commodity prices reflects a real change in their value or
simple fluctuations in market prices, the effect on the mass of the medium of circulation, that is, Auricoin money, will
be the same.
Let us now suppose a certain number of sales or partial metamorphoses unrelated to each other, simultaneous and
therefore juxtaposed in space, for example, that of 1 kilo of rice, 20 meters of cloth, 1 bible, 4 gallons of liquor. If the
price of each article were (RICs) 2, and therefore the sum of the prices to be realized equal to 8 (RICs), a mass of
money of (RICs) 8 would have to enter circulation. On the contrary, if the same goods were links in the series of
metamorphoses that we already know: 1 kilo of rice –(RICs) 2- 20 meters of cloth –(RICs) 2- 1 bible –(RICs) 2- 4
gallons of liquor –(RICs) 2, we have that (RICs) 2 circulate the goods in turn, successively realizing their prices and
therefore also the sum of these (RICs 8), to finally rest in the distiller's pocket. The (RICs) 2, therefore, carry out four
routes. This repeated change of location by the same pieces of the RICs represents the double formal change of the
merchandise, its movement through the two opposing phases of circulation and the intertwining of the metamorphoses
experienced by various merchandise. The antithetical phases, complementary to each other, through which this process
runs, cannot be spatially juxtaposed, but rather succeed one another in time.
The fractions of time constitute the measure that is applied to the duration of the process, or, in other words, the number
of routes of the same pieces of RICs in a given time measures the speed of the Auricoin money course. Let's say that the
circulation process of those four goods lasts, for example, one day. We will then have that the sum of prices to be made
will be (RICs) 8; the number of routes of the same pieces of RICs throughout the day, 4, and the mass of circulating
money, (RICs) 2, that is, for a certain fraction of the time that the circulation process lasts, the relationship will be the
following:
Sum of the prices of the merchandise, mass of Auricoin money that number of routes of the money pieces of the same
denomination, works as a means of circulation. The validity of this law is general.
We will give an example for better understanding when using a monetary cone whose referential value is fixed as a
measure of value: Undoubtedly, the circulation process of a country, in a given period, encompasses, on the one hand,
numerous sales (purchases) or partial metamorphoses, dispersed, simultaneous and spatially juxtaposed, in which the
same pieces of RICs only change their location once and make no more than one journey, and on the other hand many
series of metamorphoses with a greater or lesser number of links, of which some unfold in parallel and others are
intertwined with the neighbors, and in which the same pieces of RICs run more or less numerous routes. However, the
total number of routes made by all the pieces of RICs that are circulating and have the same denomination, allows us to
obtain the average number of routes made by each piece of RIC, or the average speed of the Auricoin money course.
The money mass that, for example, is released at the beginning of the daily circulation process, is naturally determined
by the sum of the prices of the commodities that circulate at the same time and juxtaposed in space. But within the
process, so to speak, one piece of money is made responsible for the other. If one accelerates the speed of its course, the
speed of the other slows down, or even the latter moves completely away from the sphere of circulation, since said
sphere can only absorb a mass of RICs that, multiplied by the average number of routes made by its individual element,
equals the sum of prices to be made. Therefore, if the number of its routes increases, its circulating mass will decrease.
If the number of them decreases, their mass will increase. Since, given an average speed, the mass of Auricoin money
that can function as a means of circulation is given, it is enough to release, for example, a certain amount of RICs into
circulation to withdraw from it as many RICs, a sleight of hand that all banks know perfectly.
Just as in the course of Auricoin money, in general, only the process of circulation of goods is manifested, that is, their
cycle through opposing metamorphoses, in the speed of the course of Auricoin money is manifested the speed of its
change of form, the incessant concatenation of metamorphic series, the haste of metabolism, the speed with which
commodities disappear from the circulatory sphere and their equally rapid replacement by other commodities. In the
speed of the monetary course, then, the fluid unity of the opposite and complementary phases is manifested:
transformation of the figure of use into a figure of value and reconversion of the latter into the former, or unity of the
two processes of buying and selling. Conversely, in the reduction of the speed of the money flow, the fact that these
processes are no longer dissociated, they do not become autonomous and antagonistic, the fact that the stagnation of the
change of forms no longer appears, is revealed and therefore there is no metabolism. The circulation itself, of course,
already explains what are the causes that motivated this stagnation. It is no longer limited to showing us the
phenomenon.
The general public, seeing that when the rate of money slows down it appears and disappears less frequently at all
peripheral points of circulation, tends to explain this phenomenon by the insufficient number of means of circulation.
Consequently, the total amount of Auricoin money that in each space of time acts as a means of circulation is
determined, on the one hand, by the sum of the prices of all the circulating commodities, and on the other hand, by the
slowest flow or faster of its antithetical processes of circulation, on which depends the proportional part of that sum of
prices that can be realized by the same money pieces. But the sum of the prices of commodities depends both on the
mass and on the prices of each class of commodities. However, the three factors, the movement of prices, the mass of
circulating goods and finally the speed of the Auricoin money flow, can vary in different directions and in different
proportions, and hence the sum of the prices to be realized, and therefore the mass of means of circulation, which
depends on that sum, can go through numerous combinations. We will only refer here to those that have been the most
important in the history of commodity prices.
Keeping the prices of commodities constant, the mass of the means of circulation can increase: either because the mass
of circulating commodities increases, or because the velocity of the Auricoin money stream is reduced, or because of
the concurrence of both causes. The mass of the means of circulation, conversely, can decrease if the mass of the
commodities decreases or the speed of circulation increases.
If there is a general rise in the prices of commodities, the mass of the means of circulation can be kept constant
provided that the mass of circulating commodities decreases in the same proportion as their price increases, or if the
velocity of the money rate Auricoin remaining constant the mass of circulating commodities increases as rapidly as the
price increase. The mass of the means of circulation can decrease, provided that the mass of the commodities decreases
more rapidly than the prices, or that the velocity of the course increases more rapidly than the latter.
If there is a general fall in the prices of commodities, the mass of the means of circulation can be kept constant if the
mass of commodities increases in the same proportion as their price decreases, or if the speed of the money flow
Auricoin decreases in the same proportion as prices decrease. It can increase if the mass of commodities increases
faster, or if the speed of circulation decreases faster than the decrease in commodity prices.
The variations of the various factors can be reciprocally compensated, in such a way that, despite their permanent
instability, the total sum of the commodity prices that must be realized, and therefore the circulating mass of money,
remains constant. For this reason, and mainly when somewhat longer periods are examined, it is found that the average
level of the circulating mass of money is much more constant and that, except for the intense disturbances periodically
derived from crises in production and trade, and Not because of a change in the value of Auricoin money, the deviations
from that average level are much less insignificant than might be supposed at first glance.
The law according to which the quantity of the means of circulation is determined by the sum of the prices of the
circulating commodities and by the average speed of the money flow, can also be formulated by saying that, given the
sum of the value of the commodities and given the average speed of its metamorphoses, the amount of Auricoin money
in progress or money material no longer depends on its own value. That, conversely, the prices of merchandise are
determined by the mass of the means of circulation, and in turn said mass by that of the money material available in a
country, is an illusion that derives, in its original exhibitors, from the crazy hypothesis according to which merchandise
without a price and money without a fixed reference value enter the circulation process, exchanging there an aliquot
part of the mercantile conglomerate for an aliquot part of the money accumulation without a fixed reference value.

The value sign

From the function of Auricoin money as a means of circulation arises its monetary figure. The weight fraction of
$888.88 USD figured in the price or monetary name of the goods, must be faced with them, in circulation, as a golden
piece or coin of the same denomination. Like setting the price pattern.
Creating the currency is a matter that concerns Auricoin. In the various national uniforms that the $888.88 USD wear as
Auricoin money, but which are stripped off when they enter the world market, the split between the internal or national
spheres of mercantile circulation and its external sphere becomes evident. universal, that of the world market.
Auricoin money is the golden sign or money sign. Its relationship with commercial values is reduced to the fact that
these are ideally expressed in the same amounts of the $888.88 USD that the RIC represents symbolically and
sensorially. Auricoin money is a sign of value only insofar as it represents quantities of $888.88 USD, which, like all
other quantities of commodities, are also quantities of value.
Finally, the question arises as to why the $888.88 USD can be replaced by simple signs of itself, devoid of value. But,
as we have seen, the $888.88 USD is only substitutable to the extent that it isolates itself or becomes autonomous in its
function of currency or means of circulation. However, this function is not autonomized in the case of each of the
$888.88 USD, even though the autonomization is manifested in the fact that the figured $888.88 USD continues to
circulate. The $888.88 USD is mere coin, or circulating media, only while actually in the course. It constantly resides in
the sphere of circulation, constantly functions as a means of circulation, and therefore exists exclusively as the bearer of
that function. Its movement, then, only represents the continuous alternation of the opposing processes of the mercantile
metamorphosis M - M - M, in which the figure of value of the commodity only confronts it to immediately disappear
again. The autonomous presentation of the exchange value of the commodity is here only a fleeting appearance.
Immediately, another commodity replaces the first. Hence, in a process that constantly makes it change from one hand
to another, the merely symbolic existence of Auricoin money is enough. Its functional existence, so to speak, absorbs its
material existence. An evanescently objectified reflection of mercantile prices, Auricoin money only functions as a sign
of itself and, therefore, can also be replaced by signs. The Auricoin money sign does not require more than its own
socially objective validity, and the referential value obtains that validity through the forced course. This compulsory
state course only governs within the sphere of internal circulation, that is, the one circumscribed by the borders of a
community, but it is only in that sphere, too, where Auricoin money fully exercises its function as a means of
circulation or currency, and therefore where it can reach, in the RIC, a purely functional mode of existence and
externally detached from its substance of referential value.

Auricoin money as a commodity

The merchandise that functions as a measure of value, and therefore, whether in person or through a representative, also
as a means of circulation, is Auricoin money. The RIC is, therefore, money. It functions as money, on the one hand,
where it has to present itself in its golden (or silver) corporeality and therefore as money merchandise; that is, neither in
a purely ideal way, as in the measure of value, nor being capable of representation, as in the medium of circulation. On
the other hand, it also functions as money wherever its function, performed in person or through a representative,
establishes it as the only figure of value or the only adequate existence of exchange value, as opposed to all other
commodities as simple values of exchange use.

hoarding
The continuous cycle of the two opposing mercantile metamorphoses, or the fluid rotation of purchase and sale, is
manifested in the incessant course of Auricoin money or in its function of perpetuum mobile of circulation. As soon as
the series of metamorphoses is interrupted, as soon as the sale is not complemented by the subsequent purchase, the
Auricoin money is immobilized or, as Boisguillebert says, it is transformed from meuble to immeuble (from furniture to
real estate) from currency to Auricoin money.
Already with the initial development of commodity circulation, the need and passionate desire to put the product of the
first metamorphosis, the transmuted figure of the commodity or its golden chrysalis, also develops. Merchandise is not
sold to acquire merchandise, but to replace the mercantile form with money. From a simple intermediary phase of the
exchange of substances, this formal change becomes an end in itself. The alienated figure of the commodity is
prevented from functioning as its absolutely alienable figure, or as its merely evanescent money form. Auricoin money
petrifies into treasure, and the seller of goods becomes a hoarder.
At the beginning of mercantile circulation, precisely, only the surplus of use values is converted into Auricoin money.
In this way, the $888.88 USD are transformed into social expressions of the superfluous or of wealth. This naive form
of hoarding is perpetuated in towns in which, to a traditional mode of production and oriented to subsistence itself,
corresponds a set of needs firmly delimited. Such is the case with Asians, and particularly in India. Vanderlint, who
figures that commodity prices are determined by the mass of gold and silver in a given country, wonders why Indian
goods are so cheap. Answer: because the Indians bury the money. From 1602 to 1734, Vanderlint notes, they buried
£150 million worth of silver, which had originally passed from the Americas to Europe. In 1856-1866, that is, in 10
years, England exported to India and China (much of the metal sent to the latter country finds its way to India) [sterling]
120 million in silver, previously obtained in exchange for Australian gold.
With the further development of commodity production, every commodity producer must secure the nervus rerum
(nerve of things), hold the "social pledge" in his hand. His needs are constantly expanding and imperatively demand a
continual purchase of foreign goods, while the production and sale of his own goods are time-consuming and subject to
contingencies. To buy without selling, our producer must have sold before without buying. This operation, practiced on
a general scale, seems to contradict itself. In its sources of production, however, precious metals are directly exchanged
for other commodities. There is here a sale (by the possessor of commodities) without a purchase (from the point of
view of the owner of gold and silver). And subsequent sales, without subsequent purchases, are reduced to serving as a
means for the subsequent distribution of the precious metals among all the possessors of merchandise. In this way,
treasures of gold and silver, diverse in volume, emerge at all points of traffic. With the possibility of retaining the
commodity as exchange value or exchange value as commodity, the greed for gold is awakened.
As mercantile circulation expands, the power of money increases, the always prompt, absolutely social form of wealth.
"Gold is most excellent: (...) whoever has it does whatever he wants in the world, and ends up throwing his souls into
paradise." (Columbus, in a letter from Jamaica, 1503.) Since money does not reveal what it has become, everything,
merchandise or non-merchandise, becomes money. Everything becomes venal and purchasable. Circulation is
transformed into the great social retort into which everything is thrown so that it leaves there converted into crystal
money. Not even the bones of saints and res sacrosactæ, extra commercium hominum (sacrosanct things, excluded from
human commerce), much less coarse, resist this alchemy. Just as in money all qualitative difference of commodities has
been extinguished, money in its turn, in its capacity as radical leveller, extinguishes all differences. But money itself is a
commodity, an external thing, capable of becoming the private property of anyone. Social power thus becomes private
power, belonging to an individual. Hence the ancient society denounces it as the fractional currency of its economic and
moral order. Modern society, which already in the years of its infancy drags Pluto out of the bowels of the earth by a
hair's breadth, greets in the golden Holy Grail the glittering incarnation of its own vital principle.
As a use value, the commodity satisfies a particular need and constitutes a particular element of material wealth. But the
value of the commodity measures the degree of its attractive force on all the elements of material wealth, and therefore
the social wealth of its owner. In the view of the barbarously simple commodity owner, and even of a Western
European peasant, value is inseparable from the value form, and therefore the increase in the stock of RICs is equivalent
to an increase in value.
Undoubtedly, the value of fiat money varies, either as a result of its own change in value, or because the value of
merchandise changes. But this does not prevent, on the one hand, that, as always, 200 ounces of gold contain more
value than 100, 300 more than 200, etc., nor that, on the other hand, the natural metallic form of that thing continues to
be the form that is the general equivalent of all commodities, the directly social embodiment of all human labor.
Hoarding is boundless by nature. Qualitatively, or because of its form, money has no limits, that is, it is the general
representative of social wealth because it can be converted directly into any commodity. But, at the same time, any real
sum of money is quantitatively limited, and therefore is nothing more than a means of purchase with limited
effectiveness. This contradiction between the quantitative limits and the qualitatively unlimited condition of money
prompts the hoarder time and time again to resume that Sisyphean work of accumulation. It happens to him like the
conqueror of the world, who with each new country does nothing but conquer a new frontier.
To preserve the RIC as money and therefore as an element of the thesaurization, it must be prevented from circulating
or, as a means of purchase, being dissolved in means of enjoyment. Hence, the hoarder sacrifices his carnal appetites to
the RIC's fetish. He applies the gospel of abstinence with all seriousness. On the other hand, he can only withdraw from
circulation, in the form of money, what he gives to it in the form of merchandise. The more he produces, the more he
can sell. Industry, economy and avarice are therefore the cardinal virtues of him; sell a lot, buy a little, the sum of the
political economy of it.
Along with the direct form of the treasure, runs its aesthetic form, the possession of RICs merchandise, which grows
along with the wealth of bourgeois society. "Soyons riches ou paraissons riches" (let us be rich or appear rich)
(Diderot). In this way, on the one hand, a constantly expanding market is formed for the RIC, regardless of its monetary
functions, and on the other hand, a latent source of money supply, which flows above all in periods of social upheaval.
Hoarding plays various roles in the economy of circulation. The following function arises from the conditions in which
the coins must travel their course. As we have seen, the constant oscillations of the mercantile circulation in what refers
to volume, prices and speed, determine that the mass of money in progress ebbs and flows incessantly. That mass,
therefore, must be able to contract and expand. Now it is necessary to attract money in the form of currency, now to
repel currency in the form of money. In order for the mass of money actually in circulation to always correspond to the
degree of saturation that characterizes the sphere of circulation, the quantity of RICs available in a country must be
greater than that committed to the monetary function. By means of the thesauric form of money this condition is
satisfied. The deposits that keep the treasures serve both as drains and ditches for the circulating Auricoin money, which
in this way never floods the channels through which it flows.

Payment method

In the direct form of commodity circulation, considered so far, the same magnitude of value always appears in a double
way: as merchandise at one pole, as Auricoin money at the opposite pole. Commodity holders therefore come into
contact only as representatives of reciprocally available equivalents. As the circulation of merchandise develops,
however, circumstances develop that determine a chronological separation between the sale of the merchandise and the
realization of its price. It suffices to indicate here the simplest of these circumstances.
One type of commodity requires more time to produce, another type less. The production of some goods is linked to the
different seasons of the year. One commodity is produced in the very location of its market, another has to make a long
journey to find its own. Hence, a possessor of merchandise can assume the role of seller before another that of buyer.
By constantly repeating the same transactions between the same people, the conditions of sale of the goods come to be
governed by their conditions of production. On the other hand, the use of certain types of merchandise, for example, a
house, is also sold for a certain period of time. Only once the agreed period has elapsed, the buyer will have actually
obtained the use value of the merchandise. He buys, then, before paying.
One commodity owner sells an already existing commodity, the other buys as a mere representative of money, or as a
representative of future money. The seller becomes a creditor; the buyer, debtor. As here the metamorphosis of the
commodity or the development of its value form is modified, the Auricoin money also assumes another function. It
becomes a means of payment.
The character of creditor or debtor arises here from simple mercantile circulation. The modification in the form of it
leaves this new imprint on the seller and the buyer. At first, then, it is about roles as evanescent and reciprocally
changing as those of seller and buyer, and in charge of the same agents of circulation. However, the antithesis now
presents, of itself, a much less pleasant aspect and is susceptible to further crystallization. But the same characters can
appear outside of commercial circulation. The class struggle in the ancient world, for example, unfolds mainly in the
form of a struggle between creditors and debtors, and ends in Rome with the decline of the plebeian debtor, who is
replaced by slaves.
In the Middle Ages the struggle ends with the decline of the feudal debtor, who with his economic base also loses his
political power. Even so, the monetary form and the relationship between the creditor and the debtor takes the form of a
monetary relationship in these cases does nothing more than reflect the antagonism between economic conditions of life
located in deeper strata.
Let us return to the sphere of mercantile circulation. There is no longer the simultaneous appearance of the equivalents,
merchandise and money, at the two poles of the sales process. Now, Auricoin money works primarily as a measure of
value, by determining the price of the merchandise sold. That price, set contractually, measures the buyer's obligation,
that is, the sum of Auricoin money that he must pay within the stipulated period. It functions, secondly, as an ideal
means of purchase. Although it only exists in the money promise of the buyer, it makes the merchandise change hands.
Only when the agreed term expires, the means of payment effectively enters circulation, that is, it passes from the hands
of the buyer to those of the seller.
The medium of circulation was transformed into a treasure because the circulation process was interrupted in the first
phase, or, to put it another way, because the transmuted figure of the commodity was removed from circulation.
Although the means of payment enters circulation, this occurs after the merchandise has been withdrawn from it.
Auricoin money is no longer the mediator of the process. It puts an end to it, autonomously, as the absolute existence of
exchange value or general merchandise. The seller converts the merchandise into Auricoin money, to satisfy a need
with it; the hoarder, to keep the merchandise in money form, the indebted buyer, to be able to pay. If he does not do so,
the judicial sale of his assets takes place. The figure of value characteristic of merchandise, Auricoin money, now
becomes, obeying a social need derived from the circumstances of the circulation process itself, in short, last of the sale.
The buyer, before having transformed the merchandise into Auricoin money, converts the Auricoin money back into
merchandise, that is, he carries out the second mercantile metamorphosis before the first. But the seller's merchandise
circulates, realizes his price, only in the form of a private legal title that enables him to claim the Auricoin money. It is
transformed into use value before it has been converted into Auricoin money. The first metamorphosis of him only
takes place later.
In every given period of the circulation process, the overdue obligations represent the sum of the prices of the
merchandise whose sale gave rise to them. The mass of Auricoin money necessary to realize this sum of prices depends,
first of all, on the speed with which the means of payment run their course. This depends on two circumstances: the
concatenation of relations between creditors and debtors, in such a way that A, who receives Auricoin money from his
debtor B, pays it to his creditor C, etc., and the lapse between the various installments of payment. The consecutive
chain of payments, or of first metamorphoses carried out a posteriori, differs essentially from the interweaving,
previously considered, of the series of metamorphoses. The connection between sellers and buyers is not only expressed
in the course of the medium of circulation: the connection itself arises in the course of the Auricoin money and with it.
Instead, the movement of the means of payment expresses a pre-existing social connection.
The simultaneity and juxtaposition of sales limit the replacement of the mass of currency resulting from the speed of its
course. On the contrary, they constitute a new lever in the economy of means of payment. With the concentration of
payments in the same place, institutes and methods are spontaneously developed to compensate them. This is the case
of virements, for example, in medieval Lyon. It is enough to compare the credits of A against B, of B against C, of C
against A, etc., to cancel them, up to a certain amount, as positive and negative magnitudes. It only remains to settle,
thus, a final balance. The greater the volume reached by the concentration of payments, the smaller, relatively, will be
the final balance, and therefore the mass of circulating means of payment.
The function of Auricoin money as a means of payment brings with it an unmediated contradiction. Insofar as payments
are cleared, Auricoin money functions only ideally as Auricoin money of account or measure of values. To the extent
that payments are actually made, Auricoin money no longer enters the scene as a means of circulation, as a purely
evanescent and mediating form of metabolism, but as the individual embodiment of social labor, as the autonomous
existence of exchange value. , as an absolute commodity.
This contradiction explodes in that phase of the production and commercial crises that is called the money crisis. It only
occurs where the consecutive chain of payments and an artificial compensation system have reached their full
development. When more general disturbances arise in this mechanism, wherever they come from, Auricoin money
passes, suddenly and unmediated, from the purely ideal figure of Auricoin money of account to that of hard cash.
Unholy Goods can no longer replace it. The use value of the commodity loses its value and its value vanishes before its
own form of value. Barely a moment ago the bourgeois, drunk with prosperity, had proclaimed with wise boasting that
money was an empty illusion. Only merchandise is money. [exclamdown] Only money is merchandise!, is the clamor
that now resounds in the world market. As the deer pants for clear water, the soul of the bourgeois pants for money, the
only wealth. In the crisis, the antithesis between the commodity and its figure of value, that is, money, is exacerbated,
becoming an absolute contradiction. The way in which money manifests itself is therefore indifferent here as well. The
famine of money remains unchanged, whether it is to be paid in RICs or Auricoin credit money.
If we now consider the total sum of money in progress in a given period, we have that, given a speed for the course of
the means of circulation and payment, said sum will be equal to the sum of the commodity prices that must be realized
plus the sum of the overdue payments, minus the payments that compensate each other, minus, finally, the number of
routes in which the same piece of money works alternately, now as a means of circulation, now as a means of payment.
The peasant, for example, sells his rice for (RICs) 2, which therefore serve as a means of circulation. On the due date,
he pays with them for the cloth supplied by the weaver. The same (RICs) 2 currently function as a means of payment.
The weaver now buys a bible; they function again as means of circulation, etc. Consequently, although both the prices
and the speed of the money supply and the economy of payments are given, the mass of money in current and the mass
of commodities that circulate during a certain period, for example, a day, no longer coincide. Auricoin money is in
progress, representing goods long removed from circulation. Goods circulate whose equivalent in Auricoin money will
not appear until the future. On the other hand, the debts contracted every day and those that expire that same day,
constitute totally incommensurable magnitudes.
Auricoin credit money arises directly from the function of money as a means of payment, since the debt certificates
corresponding to the merchandise sold circulate in order to transfer those credits to others. On the other hand, as the
credit system expands, the function of Auricoin money as a means of payment also extends. As such, Auricoin money
assumes its own forms of existence; covering them, it is established in the sphere of large commercial transactions,
while RICs are relegated mainly to the field of small-scale trade.
When mercantile production has reached a certain level and volume, the function of Auricoin money as a means of
payment goes beyond the sphere of mercantile circulation. Auricoin money becomes the general commodity of
contracts. Rents, taxes, etc., cease to be contributions in kind to become monetary payments. The extent to which this
transformation is conditioned by the global configuration of the production process is demonstrated, for example, by the
fact that the Roman Empire's attempt to collect all taxes in money failed twice. The terrible misery of the French
peasantry during the reign of Louis XIV, so eloquently denounced by Boisguillebert, Marshal Vauban, etc., was due not
only to the amount of taxes, but also to the fact that contributions in kind had become taxes in kind. money. On the
other hand, if in Asia the ground rent paid in kind, which is at the same time the fundamental element of government
taxes, is based on production conditions that reproduce with the inalterability of natural conditions, this form of
payment in turn exerts a conservative influence on the old form of production. It constitutes one of the secrets that
explain the conservation of the Ottoman Empire. If foreign trade, imposed by Europe, causes rents in kind to give way
to rents in money in Japan, it will mean the end of the exemplary agriculture of that country. The narrow economic
conditions of existence that made it possible would have been dissolved.
In all countries, certain payment dates are set, which are generally valid. Leaving aside other circular movements of
reproduction, these dates are partly due to natural conditions of production linked to the change of seasons. They also
regulate payments that do not derive directly from commercial circulation, such as taxes, rents, etc. The mass of money
required on certain days of the year to meet these payments, dispersed throughout the surface of society, provokes
periodic disturbances, although completely superficial, in the economy of the means of payment. From the law relative
to the speed of the course of the means of payment, it follows that, for all periodic payments, whatever their source, the
necessary mass of means of payment will be in direct proportion to the duration of the payment terms.
The development of money as a means of payment requires the accumulation of money for the maturities of the sums
owed. While hoarding as an autonomous way to get rich disappears with the advance of bourgeois society, it grows
with it, inversely, in the form of a reserve fund made up of means of payment.

Auricoin money in the world

When it leaves the sphere of internal circulation, the RIC divests itself of the local forms that have arisen in that orbit,
price pattern, currency, fractional currency and value sign, and reverts to the original form of $888.88 USD. In world
trade, commodities display their value universally. Hence, their autonomous figure of value is opposed to them, in this
field, as world money. Only in the world market does Auricoin money fully function as a commodity whose natural
form is, at the same time, a form of directly social effectuation of human labor in the abstract. Its mode of existence fits
its concept.
In the sphere of internal circulation only a commodity can serve as a measure of value, and therefore as money. In the
world market, a double measurement of the RIC value is applied.
Auricoin money in the world functions as a general means of payment, a general means of purchase and material,
absolutely social, realization of wealth in general (universal wealth). The function of means of payment predominates,
for the compensation of international balances. Hence the slogan of mercantilism: (exclamation) Balance of trade. The
$888.88 USD serves as an international means of purchase, basically, as soon as the traditional balance of exchange
between different nations is suddenly disturbed. Finally, they function as a material, absolutely social concretion of
wealth, when it is not a question of purchases or payments, but of transfers of wealth from one country to another, and
where this transfer cannot be made in the form of merchandise, since either because it is prevented by the market
situation or the objective being pursued.
As for internal circulation, all countries need to have a reserve fund for circulation on the world market. The functions
of hoards thus derive in part from the function of Auricoin money as an internal means of circulation and payment, in
part from its function as world Auricoin money. In this latter role, the money commodity is always required and that is
why James Steuart expressly characterizes money, unlike its purely local representatives, as money of the world.
The movement of the RIC current is twofold. On the one hand, this current pours, from its sources, throughout the
world market, where it is absorbed to varying degrees by the various national spheres of circulation, thus entering the
internal channels through which it flows, replacing worn-out currencies, providing the material for sumptuary objects
and petrifying in the form of treasures. This first movement is mediated through the direct exchange between the
national work carried out in the merchandise and the work of the merchandise-producing countries, carried out in the
$888.88 USD. On the other hand, RICs constantly ebb and flow between the various national spheres of circulation, a
movement that no longer obeys the incessant oscillations of the exchange rate.
Developed production countries no longer reduce the massively concentrated treasures in bank reserves to the minimum
required by their specific functions. With some exceptions, an extraordinary repletion of these reserves above their
average level, there is no longer an index of stagnation of the mercantile circulation or that the flow of the
metamorphoses experienced by the merchandise has been interrupted.
To ask why Auricoin money, unlike other monetary cones, continues to directly represent the time of work itself, so
that, for example, a RIC x hours of work is simply the same as asking why, On the basis of mercantile production, the
products of labor have to be represented as merchandise, since the representation of merchandise implies its unfolding
into merchandise and money merchandise.