Who do Samaritans call?

 

Driven to despair by capitalism? UK workers can always call the Samaritans, a help-line run by unpaid volunteers. Sadly, those volunteers also face capitalism’s cruelties, in the form of money-saving cut-backs, office closures and a requirement to work in isolation at home.

‘Having sacked volunteers who dared voice concerns about the proposed closure of half of its branches, the Samaritans’ HQ has slapped them with serious misconduct charges and imposed lifetime bans…’ Whistleblowers speak anonymously, fearing reprisals: ‘Leadership have used the concerns and complaints process like the thought police. They are on career paths, some of them very well paid… most of them will never have had to talk a caller down from suicide…’ (Private Eye, 5 February 2026).

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 224

The Prince

 

The prince is so divined by rite of birth,

No merit necessary, nor deserved;

Predestined not to serve, but to be served

Irrespective of foibles, fault or worth.

What personal qualities should a prince show?

Those, perhaps, that best define his station,

Daring! Cruelty! Manipulation!

As promulgated by Old Niccolo.

These media days maybe it’s more vital

A public prince should be wisely bidden

To keep such characteristics hidden,

As exposure could cost him his title.

But, should monarchy, like the old Tsars, fall,

Capital will just repossess it all.

 

D. A.

Agency and Responsibility

The controversy surrounding the 2026 BAFTA Film Awards, in which John Davidson, whose life with Tourette’s inspired the film I Swear, involuntarily vocalised a racial slur during the ceremony, generated predictable outrage. Social media rapidly framed the incident as an “outburst,” implying intent. The assumption of agency was immediate.

Yet Tourette’s syndrome, particularly in cases involving coprolalia, involves involuntary vocalisations. The utterance of taboo words is not a revelation of belief but a neurological compulsion. Coprolalia occurs in approximately 10-15 percent of people with Tourette’s and involves the brain’s failure to suppress socially inappropriate utterances. The individual has no control over the content; the words that emerge are often those most prohibited by their conscious values, precisely because the brain’s suppression mechanism has misfired.

The episode offers a useful case study in how capitalist society understands, and misunderstands, responsibility.

Agency Under Capitalism

Capitalist society rests heavily on the idea of individual responsibility. Workers are treated as autonomous units of labour power, assumed to be rational, self regulating, and fully in control of their conduct. Discipline in speech and behaviour is expected as part of employability and public legitimacy.

Where agency is compromised, through illness, disability or neurological variation, this framework strains. Instead of adjusting its assumptions, society often reasserts them more harshly. The presumption of intent remains, even where medical explanation is well documented.

This reveals a contradiction. When an individual is able to conform, their conformity is praised as personal virtue. When they cannot, their difference is interpreted as moral failure.

The Policing of Speech

Modern capitalism places significant emphasis on regulated language. Public speech is increasingly scrutinised, not only in workplaces but in cultural life. While there are good reasons to challenge genuinely racist or abusive expression, the framework often operates without regard to material context.

This is not an argument against challenging racist language. When someone with full agency chooses to use slurs, that reveals values and deserves opposition. The point is that agency itself must be established before moral judgment is applied. Treating involuntary and deliberate speech identically serves neither anti racism nor disability justice.

The Davidson incident illustrates this tension. A word can be socially harmful in its historical weight and impact. But responsibility cannot be abstracted from agency. To treat involuntary neurological discharge as deliberate prejudice collapses an important distinction.

Capitalist society frequently commodifies “inspirational” narratives of disability. Films, awards ceremonies and media profiles celebrate individuals overcoming adversity. Yet this celebration is conditional. It assumes that disability can be packaged into palatable form. When the unfiltered reality appears, tolerance evaporates.

The disabled individual is accepted only so long as they remain manageable.

Outrage as Commodity

The rapid reaction online was not incidental. Social media platforms reward immediacy and emotional intensity. Speed outruns verification. The platforms profit from engagement regardless of accuracy. A nuanced explanation of Tourette’s generates less interaction than moral outrage. The economic incentive is toward simplification and condemnation, not toward understanding the material reality of neurological conditions.

Under these conditions, moral judgement becomes performative. Expressing indignation is easier than examining neurological evidence. The result is a form of “gotcha” politics that prioritises signalling over understanding.

The Paradox of Inspiration

Davidson’s presence at the BAFTAs was itself a product of an inspiration narrative , his life “overcoming” Tourette’s packaged as cultural uplift. But inspiration requires disability to be sanitised, controlled, presented as triumph over adversity.

The moment Tourette’s manifested as it actually does, involuntarily, inconveniently, in a way that cannot be neatly celebrated, the tolerance evaporated. This reveals what capitalism often means by “acceptance”: the disabled must perform their difference in ways that affirm rather than challenge existing norms.

Responsibility Reconsidered

A socialist analysis does not abandon the concept of harm. Words carry histories; their impact is real. But justice requires proportionality and context. If an action is involuntary, then moral condemnation is misdirected.

The deeper issue is the rigidity of a society that demands uniform neurological performance in public life. When responsibility is defined without regard to material capacity, it ceases to be rational and becomes punitive.

The BAFTA incident reveals a system that confuses control with virtue and compliance with morality. It treats neurological difference as character defect and involuntary behaviour as moral choice. A materialist analysis rejects this confusion and demands that responsibility be matched to actual agency, not to capitalist fantasies of the self regulating individual.

Pablo

Recent BBC exposé reveals … well hardly anything really

 

When you see a headline like “Why food fraud persists, even with improving tech”, you might reasonably expect to be told why honey is deliberately contaminated with glucose syrup, why melamine was added to Chinese baby formula or why spice is adulterated with industrial dyes.

These are just some of the ‘food crimes’ mentioned in the article, which also bemoans the difficulty/impossibility of monitoring the food we eat. Yet the motive for food fraud – extra profit – is never addressed. Because to have done so, the BBC would have had to challenge the logic of the very system it was set up to defend.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 223

Quotidian Fallacy

 

Volunteering must be unnatural,

Most certainly a contradiction indeed

Of that basic human motivation, greed!

A person’s worth is measured by the deal

Securing the highest price for work done,

While any employer will want to see

How much work can be extracted for free:

Surely no one will work a shift for fun?

Astonishingly, there are those who say

The world should turn on freely meeting needs,

All working together and no one leads;

People choosing to live a different way.

But stopping human nature from rearing?

About as likely as volunteering!

 

D. A.

Flats and ghosts

 The i paper (5 February) ran a story about a 70-year-old man who is living in a house with five others, the only way he can survive on his pension. Far more people over 65 now share homes than a decade ago.

Also many properties advertised on flat-sharing sites have no living room, as turning a lounge into a bedroom means more income for the landlord, so the tenants each live and sleep in just one room. Yet there are many ‘ghost homes’ in Britain, expensive new flats that remain empty because few people can afford to buy them.

This is the reality when housing is for profit, not to meet human need.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 222

Eight Billion People

 

Today, eight billion people or so

Did not dispatch drones and missiles to kill

Neighbours, didn’t intimidate or instil

A sense of fear. Mostly they’re content to go

About their lives without any glister

Of gold braid, tittles or honours. Indeed,

It’s only too clear where such awards lead:

A-lister scratching the back of A-lister.

They aren’t trafficers for sex or cheap labour,

Those who exploit the weak and distressed,

Whose only real interest is interest,

Who believe neighbour should exploit neighbour.

Better by far the eight billion would choose

To live otherwise than those in the news.

 

D. A.

Jobs, yes or no?

 

Dignity, hope, resilience. All dimensions of having a job according to the World Bank. Who knew the caring, sharing World Bank was so invested in the health, well-being and emotional welfare of t millions of young people? No, of course it’s not, the WB operates on behalf of the interests of the minority capitalist class in the world. 1.2 billion jobs will be required says the WB to provide employment for the number of young people who will have to sell their labour power in order to live under a capitalist system. The WB didn’t say that of course. Neither did it mention surplus value, exploitation or class warfare.

So where are these jobs going to come from? Unlikely that there will be that many because of retirees or people dropping out of the labour market. What impact will AI have on the jobs which still require actual humans? How many people will the reserve army of labour ‘employ’?

In England from Henry Eight through to James First statutes were enacted that threatened the most severe punishments, up to and including death, for ‘sturdy vagabonds’ and ‘idlers’ who were not involved in labour. ‘Punishment’ included whipping, branding and the cutting off of body parts. Similar laws were enforced in France and the Netherlands also.

When the ‘new’ workforce will have also to compete against AI and new technologies designed to do away with human workers, will capitalism be able to provide jobs that provide ‘dignity and hope’ Those terms are an oxymoron under capitalism. When these jobs don’t materialise will we see capitalism revert to thedraconian laws of previous centuries to force people to accept medieval coercion?

The below is from the Socialist Standard, August 2010

‘Don’t get us wrong. We don’t want to play down the misery of those who have lost their jobs – or the many more who are going to lose their jobs – in the current slump. We know very well what losing your job so often means. Losing your home (well, you thought it was yours!). Even losing your family.

But think. If not being employed was really the problem, wouldn’t you expect everyone without a job to be in misery? But there are many people who don’t have jobs and yet live well enough. People who don’t need jobs.

Native people in the Amazon rainforest, for so long as they manage to preserve their old way of life, don’t need jobs. They have access to land, food, wood, medicinal herbs, other resources they need – to their means of life. When the logging and mining companies move in, they lose access. Sure, then they need jobs.

Most of us in the “developed” countries lost access to the means of life long ago. They no longer belong to us. They were seized by a small minority who claim to own them. These owners allow us access to things we need only in exchange for money. If we can’t pay, they would sooner have things go to waste – sooner leave houses empty, for instance, than shelter the homeless. They allow us access to productive resources only when they hire us to work for them. If we try to get access without their permission, they call us criminals and send their police and jailors to punish us.

These people – the employers, the owners of the means of life – are unemployed, every one of them. But it doesn’t bother them a bit! They live on the income from their property. They too don’t need jobs.

So unemployment is a problem only for people who depend on being employed in order to live. That situation of dependence is what we mean by the real problem.

Some of us try to escape from the situation of dependence by going into business for ourselves. But chances of success are small – even in good times, let alone during a slump. Many don’t seek escape at all but appeal to the government to create more jobs, hoping to go back to slaving away for others.

We socialists don’t appeal for jobs. We don’t want jobs. That doesn’t mean we’re lazy. We thirst for the opportunity to do useful work as free, equal, and dignified human beings – work to satisfy our needs and the needs of others. We want to be rid of an absurd system that artificially creates misery and wastes vast material, natural, and human resources. That is why we demand restoration of access to the means of life – their common ownership and democratic control by the whole community.’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-unemployment-really-problem.html

Asbestotis for sale

 

One eagle eyed parent was suspicious of the bottles of play sand on sale at the local Hobbycraft so she did a little research. The bottles of sand contained asbestos. The level of asbestos was below the limit of concentration allowed in its country of origin but well above the UK legal level, which in itself is above the danger level. Any asbestos inhalation is considered dangerous and often fatal over the passage of time.

This highlights just how little the health of consumers is viewed under capitalism. No matter whether it’s food and drink, cladding for dwellings or children’s toys, the contents are often a secret not shared with buyers.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

Socialist Sonnet No. 221

Change

 

Neither gods nor leaders! It is people

Who make and remake societies.

Therefore, within human reason power lies

To discern and dismiss all the feeble

Commonplace political panjandrums,

Officers of state, that prestige deranges,

Under whose guidance nothing changes,

While capital keeps on doing its sums,

Totting up all the profits and losses,

Profits being what labour of workers yields,

Workers whose losses scatter battlefields

At the self-serving behest of bosses.

However things are presently arranged,

When people decide, then things can be changed.

 

D. A.

Non-stop

It’s been non-stop this year under Trump. The US has removed Maduro, said it wants to run Venezuela, tried to claim Greenland, killed protestors, put the head of its Central Bank under investigation, set up a ‘Board of Peace’ with Trump as its self-appointed leader….

What next? Some say it’s the end of democracy for the US and perhaps more widely. But we see it as capitalism just going on its merry unpredictable way. What doesn’t change is workers’ lives continuing to depend on finding an employer to sell their energies to. Instead of this, the world needs a different system of society – moneyless, cooperative, where we all freely contribute according to our abilities and take according to our needs.

 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

True then, Still true.

 

From the Socialist Standard February 1944

‘Once upon a time there was. a strange world called Bluuderland. In this world there was a palace in which there lived Baron Butrich. He wore the most costly clothes, and adorned himself with bejewelled rings on his fat fingers, and a sparkling tie-pin in his expensive necktie. Neither by hand nor by brain did he toil, yet bags of gold he had in plenty. The choicest foods and rarest wines were served to him by an under-nourished man-servant. His pet dogs, too, were fed with the richest morsels.

Baron Butrich owned many large buildings in which were huge machines. He called these buildings his factories and boasted that he derived his many bags of gold from them.

But Baron Butrich told a lie when he said it was his factories and machines that brought his riches, for the machines were worked by hundreds of poor people who lived in small, old and crumbling houses, and it was really these people who made the Baron’s wealth.

These people had no bags of gold to buy the food they needed, and they would have starved, but Baron Butrich said to them:

"Come into my factory and work my machines, and make with them the costly clothes that my wife and I will wear. Make, too, the shoddy suits and dresses that will cover your thin bodies. Come and make the beautiful expensive toys that will amuse my children. Create, also, the cheap, trifling little gadgets with which your offspring will play. Come into my factory, and, from the pulp of rags, make the newspapers that will bear praise to me, and glorify the things that give me, Baron Butrich, my favoured place in this world. Do all this and 1 will give each.of you a piece of gold with which you will be able to buy bread to eat, clothes to wear, and will pay for the hire of a place to dwell in."

And to the poor there was nothing to do but go into Baron Butrich’s factory and make the many things that were needed by the Blunderian people. Only in that way could they get the money that would pay for their food, clothing and shelter.

So the poor went into the factory and worked the machines. Beautiful and costly raiment they created for the Baron and his wife; cheap and shoddy garments they made, too, and knew, as they were not rich enough to buy the sort of garb worn by the Butrich’s, that they were fated to wear these inferior clothes. Expensive and intricate toys they made for the Baron’s children; simple little gadgets for their own offspring.

Pulp was made into paper, which was turned into newspapers that told on their pages how rich and grand was this world of Blunderland.

For six days the poor worked in this way, and at the end of that time Baron Butrich said to them:

"You have worked for six days, and here are the pieces of gold I promised you—one piece for each person. Tomorrow you need not work m my factory, but the day after to-morrow come and work for me for another six days and I will give you another piece of gold.”

And the workers took home their pieces of gold and rejoiced that they could now buy food and clothing. But before they had bought all the things they needed they found that their money was spent. And so, to get the gold that buys these needs, the poor were forced to work in the factory for another six days.

So it went on, and priceless things were made for Baron Butrich, who called a small number of new workers to his side. And to these new workers he said:

“Sell these goods for me—sell them for as high a sum as you can get, and I will give each of you a piece of silver."

And the articles were sold, and Baron Butrich became richer and richer.

As for the workers, although they received their pieces of silver each week they did not get any richer, for the silver was gone by the time they had paid for their food, clothing and shelter. But these poor Blunderians were simple folk, and did not realise that nearly all of the great riches they made were being taken from them by the Baron.

Indeed, they praised and blessed Baron Butrich, who lay in his beautiful bed, and grew fatter and fatter.

And in the castle there were to be seen even richer carpets and costlier furniture, whilst an even greater number of jewels flashed upon the fingers of the Baron as he said to the Baroness:

“How lucky we are that the Blunderians are simple people. Let us reap a rich harvest from their toil, for one day they may discard their simplicity, and there will be nobody to make our wealth.”’

F. Hawkins

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-modern-fairy-tale-palace-in.html

Money Commodity

 On the 30th January 2026 the price of silver  stood at 84.634 dollars per ounce. This was lower by 31.156 dollars on previous day, a drop of 26.91 per cent.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodities

The below is from the Socialist Standard February 1980

‘Since inflation is a monetary question and nothing but a monetary question, it cannot be understood without first knowing what money is. To most people money is the notes and coins they use to buy things, a convenient technical device for ensuring the smooth exchange and distribution of goods. While it is indeed such a medium of exchange, the currency we use today is not, strictly speaking, money at all, but only tokens for it. But to explain money it is convenient to start with this role of medium of exchange.

Exchange, as the exchange of goods, only exists in societies where there is private property: the goods involved pass from one property owner to another. In societies where there is no private property, where wealth is regarded as the common property of all the members of society, there is no exchange. People don't get what they need through exchange but directly, either by being given it or by taking it in accordance with established rules for sharing wealth. The original human societies were organised on this basis, without property and without exchange –and without money.

Exchange probably originated not within such primitive communistic societies but between them, and would have been on the basis of barter, the direct exchange of so much of one good for so much of another. Barter is the most primitive form of exchange and has obvious problems which don't need explaining at length. A person with two pots who wants a blanket must find another person with a blanket who wants two pots before any exchange can take place. At a certain stage in the evolution of exchange, the need becomes apparent for a good which can be exchanged for all goods. Then the person with the two pots can exchange them for this good and then later exchange this good for a blanket. The good that can be exchanged for all other goods is precisely money, and this gives us the basic definition: money is the good or commodity that can be exchanged for all others.

Various goods have functioned as money in the history of humanity, from cowrie shells to cattle (the word 'pecuniary' comes from pecunia, the Latin word for cattle), but in the end the most convenient have proved to be the precious metals, silver and gold. With barter, goods exchange in proportions determined by the amount of time it took to make them. Primitive people would have had a pretty shrewd idea of how long it took to make particular goods and would have regarded an exchange as fair where the goods involved had taken more or less the same period of time to make (or to gather from nature). Thus, if two pots habitually exchanged for one blanket, a blanket took twice as long to make as a pot.

In other words, commodity exchange is essentially an exchange of equivalents. When one good becomes money, this is not altered. The person with the two pots is not going to exchange them for the money-good unless both goods are considered equivalents. The money-good itself must therefore have value, must be the product of labour. This leads us to the second function of money, that of being a store of value. Someone who has exchanged their goods for the money-commodity is not obliged to exchange the latter straight away for some other good. They can keep and, if wanted, store and accumulate the money-good.

The money-commodity can best perform its role if it is not too bulky — if, in other words, it concentrates a relatively large amount of value in a relatively small bulk. This is precisely what the precious metals do. They are 'precious', or valuable, because it takes considerable labour to obtain a small amount of them. This feature would be a disadvantage had the precious metals not another characteristic — that of being easily divisible. A precious stone such as a diamond also concentrates much value in a small bulk, but because it cannot be easily divided it can't serve as the money-commodity, since the differing values of goods to be exchanged (the different times it took to make them) demand that the money-good be available in finely distinguished different amounts.

The precious metals, gold and silver, because they possessed these two features and had a fairly stable value, eventually emerged everywhere as the money-goods. Once one good has become money then exchange becomes buying and selling. Selling is the exchange of a good for the money-good, while buying is the exchange of the money-good for a good. This is still the case today but is no longer obvious because of the complications brought about by the subsequent evolution of money. The price of a good is its labour-time value expressed in amounts of the money-good. (1) This, being the standard of price, is money's third function. Prices were in fact originally expressed directly as weights of gold or silver.

The next stage in the evolution of money is the introduction of coins. About 2,500 years ago a ruler of Lydia (now Turkey) struck the first coin by stamping its weight on a piece of precious metal (electrum, an amalgam of gold and silver). This stamp served as a guarantee that it really did weigh the amount indicated. And this is all coined money is: a piece of the precious metal which is the money-commodity stamped with a guarantee of weight. At first anybody could issue coins, merchants as well as rulers, but this soon became a government monopoly.

The names of coins were originally weights of the metal of which the coins were made. Thus a pound (£) was originally, in early medieval times, a pound (lb) of silver. But over the years, if only because coins lose weight through wear and tear (but in practice for other reasons as well, as we shall see), the names given to coins came to differ from the names of the units of weight. This did not mean that the money-commodity had ceased to be measured in terms of weight; it merely meant that the money-commodity could always be translated into the more usual unit. Indeed, the new unit of monetary weight was legally defined in terms of the general unit of weight. Thus, in Britain for most of the nineteenth century, the gold coin known as a sovereign or pound was legally defined as being slightly more than a quarter of an ounce of gold (one ounce of gold was equal to £3 17s l0½d). In other words, 'pound' was an alternative name for about a quarter of an ounce of gold. Similarly, other names of currencies – dollar, mark, franc –were also alternative names for (other) weights of gold (or silver).

Gold and silver coins can lose weight not only through wear and tear but also through people deliberately filing them down, a criminal offence generally punished in the past by death. But there was a third way which was perfectly legal and unpunishable, since the 'criminal' was the government itself! Governments discovered soon after the invention of coins that issuing underweight coins – stamping one weighing, say, only 0.24 ounces as a 'pound' or 0.25 ounces –was an easy source of finance, at least in the short term. Such debasement of the coinage, however, had an unfortunate side-effect: it led to a rise in prices, not just of some goods but of all goods, a rise in the general price level. Since exactly the same mechanism operates here as with modern inflation, let's examine it in more detail.

Exchange, remember, is the exchange of equivalents (of equal amounts of socially necessary labour), selling is the exchange of a particular good for a certain amount of the money-commodity; and price is the expression of the value of a good in terms of amounts of the money-commodity. Say that four blankets are worth the same as an ounce of gold. That means that it takes as much socially necessary labour to produce four blankets as it does to produce one ounce of gold. The price of one blanket would then be a quarter of an ounce of gold, or £l.

This is an underlying real economic relationship which remains in force whatever the government does. If the government debases its coins by stamping 'pound' (quarter-ounce) on coins weighing only one-eighth of an ounce, (2) then this economic reality does not change. One blanket will still tend to exchange for a quarter-ounce of gold. If the government, by debasing the coinage, in effect changes the weight designated by the name 'pound' from a quarter-ounce to one-eighth of an ounce, then the price of one blanket will no longer be £1, since this now signifies one-eighth not one quarter of an ounce. The price will now be £2, the new way of indicating a quarter-ounce of gold. All other prices will also rise in the same proportion of 100 per cent. Prices will in fact tend to rise in the same proportion that the coinage has been debased. This would not happen immediately and all at once but would be spread out over a period of time as the effect of the debased coinage worked its way through, but the end result will be the 100 per cent rise in prices.

What will have happened is that the government's action will have changed the standard of price. This is a purely monetary matter and is in the end just a question of definition, of the weight of the money-commodity named by the word 'pound'.

The general level of prices can also change for real economic reasons as well as through the action of a government, intended or otherwise. If the amount of socially necessary labour required to produce an ounce of gold changes — if its value changes — then the prices of all other commodities are necessarily affected. To come back to our example of four blankets equal to one ounce of gold, we saw that this meant that four blankets and one ounce of gold contained the same amount of socially necessary labour, let us say five hours. Suppose that as a result of a new mining machine the average time it takes to produce one ounce of gold falls by ten per cent, to 4½ hours, while the time taken to produce four blankets remains unchanged. Four blankets will now no longer tend to exchange for one ounce of gold but for the amount of gold that can now be produced in five hours, 1.11 ounces. Since no government monkeying with the currency is involved here, 'pound' remains the name of one ounce of gold, so the price of four blankets now rises to £1.11. This happens to the price of all other goods too. This has in fact occurred a number of times in history, the last being in the thirty years up to the First World War when the value of gold fell due to the opening up of the South African and Alaskan gold mines.

A rise in the value of gold, on the other hand, due for instance to geological difficulties in working mines as they get older, would have the opposite effect, leading to a fall in the general level of prices.

The amount of money in circulation — the total weight of the coins made of the money-commodity (say, gold) which circulate as the currency — is determined by the workings of the economy and depends on three factors and their changes in particular:

1. the number of buying and selling transactions to be carried out, or the level of economic activity;
2. the total of the prices of the goods and services involved in these transactions (reflecting their value as measured by the amount of socially necessary labour they contain);
3. the average number of transactions carried out by a single coin in a given period (since coins of course circulate and are not cancelled after use), or the 'velocity of circulation' of money.

Other factors can be introduced, such as the number of debts to be settled and taxes, to be paid, and their amounts, but the basic formula is:

• Amount of money (total weight of gold) needed =
• Number of transactions x total price Velocity of circulation

This has been expressed algebraically as M = TP/V, and is known in the history of monetary theory as the Quantity Theory of Money.

Various versions of it exist, not all of which are correct. But if it is understood not as an equation but as a formula for what determines the amount of money (weight of gold coins) needed by the economy, then it is a key concept for understanding inflation. For it is saying that the amount of money needed by the economy at any time is a real economic fact determined by other economic facts, and as such not something that can be changed at will by government action. In fact it continues to be valid even when gold itself does not circulate as the currency and has been replaced in this role by paper and metallic tokens.’

Adam Buick

1. "A relation between a weight of metal and the value of an object" is how Belgium's leading economist, Fernand Baudhin, who died in 1977, defined price in his Dictionnaire de l'économie contemporaine (1973 edition).

2.  This of course is an unreal example, but the mathematics is easier to follow.

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-evolution-of-money-from-barter-to.html