 So I have capitalists who are producing and selling consumer goods. So I'm going to go back now, okay? The workers have higher incomes, so they are then increasing their demand for wage goods. And we want to ask now, what's the impact on the capitalists who are producing and selling wage goods? I just did that here. This is the impact on the capitalists who are producing and selling means of production. So I want to examine now, what's the impact of this on capitalists who are producing and selling wage goods? I'm going to do the same thing now. So this is the capitalists who are producing and selling TV sets, okay? Capitalists as sellers of not means of production, but means of subsistence. Capitalists as sellers of means of production. That's this business over here. So these capitalists now enjoy a wonderful situation in which they can sell their goods, C plus, V plus, S. That's what it costs them to produce them. So that's what it costs. Remember now, this is the embodied labor in the C plus the living labor in the V plus, S, okay? They can sell these commodities at a price for V higher than what it costs. So the inequality goes this way. That's how they benefit, okay? So they're selling these goods to workers. Workers, by assumption, are individuals who do not appropriate surplus. If they did, that would be communism, okay? If they produced an appropriate surplus, it would be communism. We're talking about capitalism. So the workers produce the surplus, the capitalists appropriate the surplus. Hence, the workers have to pay higher prices for these goods. They get higher incomes, but they have to pay higher prices. The capitalists, in turn, are the beneficiaries of this unequal exchange. They can sell their apples. What did we have before? They can sell their apples no longer for, I can't remember the numbers anymore, but they sell their apples no longer for $4, they can sell their apples for $5, a higher price than the value of the apple of four bucks if those were the numbers. And so the capitalists get a non-class revenue, okay? This non-class revenue is because they're selling the goods to people who are not capitalists. They are workers. There's nothing to do with surplus by the workers because the workers don't appropriate and hence there's no distribution that the workers make out of a surplus because they don't appropriate the surplus. So the capitalists engage in this non-class revenue in which they can sell the TV sets for a higher price than what they cost. So the profit rate of the wage-good capitalists increase as well, okay? So we have capitalists in the means of production market and in the means of subsistence markets who are benefiting. So now if we can try and put this complexity together, okay? So let me take my capitalists here. So let's start with the capitalists who are operating in the consumer-good market. Well, on one hand, they get that surplus. So these are capitalists in the consumer goods, means of subsistence, industry. They get their surplus. They pump their surplus out of the workers. But now they're getting a non-class revenue, bravo. So this is a benefit. This is their earning more because they can sell their V-goods greater than the unit value of those goods. That's the result of expansion. They're benefiting here. That's a benefit to them. On the other hand, they have to make their subsume-class payments, okay? I'm just going to add them all together. Don't forget it has these two components that we've been doing, capital accumulation plus lambda, but I'm just going to lump them together for a moment. So this reproduces the conditions of existence of this. But they have to make new payments to workers plus new payments to other capitalists. So this is the higher price of labor power, greater than the V, little V, of labor power. This is the price of the C-good greater than the unit value of the C-goods. So what I've done here is taken to account the costs on the input side, the extra costs, extra costs on the input side, and the extra benefit on the output side. If you're looking at this like I'm looking at it, you've got to ask the question, which outweighs which. That is, does the inequality go this way? Are they equal or does it go this way? And frankly, the answer is I have no idea nor does anybody else. You would have to be some kind of God, which we are not, to figure out this complexity. And what we're left with is we don't know. That is, it's possible, quite possible, that the costs could exceed the benefit. That is the shifting of the demands for the inputs to the right could increase costs by so much that it far outweighs the shift in the demand for consumer goods to the right. So the capitalists on net are hurt and they'll contract. But that's no necessity for that. It could go the other way as well. So you could get not a decline, but an expansion. So we're left with, and of course they could offset one another, the equality. We're left with, you know, rather than we don't know, we're left with a radical degree of uncertainty in capitalism. This system is extraordinarily fragile. That is, the system that everybody believes in and so forth, et cetera, is an extraordinarily fragile system. And that's what this is indicating here. At any moment, it's teetering on the brink of expansion or decline or an equilibrium. The man who came along, after Marx died, the man who came along and really focused upon that was not Marx and he was not a Marxist. His name was John Maynard Keynes, K-E-Y-N-E-S. And Keynes was struck by the uncertainty, haunting capitalism. In his great book, that he actually had been lecturing in this book for a number of years, that he published in the 1930s, the general theory of everything, basically prices, employment and so forth, there he sets out an argument of why and how capitalism is fraught with uncertainty. This is different than risk, fraught with uncertainty. And at any moment, the capitalists, those people sitting on the board of directors who are distributing their profits for K-star plus lambda, distributing their gross profits for those two items, the K-star plus lambda, can decrease or expand because of a variety of different events occurring in capitalism. Keynes summarized these variety of different events as animal spirits. And the animal spirits in society could push the capitalist to decrease K-star, let me give you an example of this. Suppose it were the case that the inequality was going this way, so that the capitalist were benefiting more on the output side from rising incomes than they were paying on the cost side. So little things look pretty good. That very advantage to the capitalist could create in them positions of worry that it's not going to continue. They have learned by now about these business cycles, the board of directors, higher managers in the corporation, who worry about this. That's part of their job to be risk adverse, let's say. So that when the very expansion is occurring and things look good, the capitalist begin to worry, because they've had an experience in this, that they have to be careful. So they begin to hedge their bets, because they're worried about the future, because they don't know what's going to happen. So they begin to worry about it, and it's a prudent capitalist who would begin to hedge his or her bets so that they don't invest all of their surplus in K-star. They don't hire more managers in lambda, rather they take a portion of that surplus and they purchase, well, whatever, let's say in the United States they purchase government securities. It's just that they begin to do that. Well, it need not be only one capitalist. As all capitalists begin to do that, that very diversification of their expenditures from K-star plus lambda to holding money or holding government securities or holding gold or whatever the case may be. That in and of itself diminishes K-star plus lambda from what it would be otherwise, and that can cause a recession. So if I put together the very expansion can make capitalist hedge their bets, worried about if this is going to continue, and cut back K-star plus lambda from what it would be otherwise, but the very cutback can create problems. Remember if you had a course in macroeconomics and as part of Keynesian analysis, the very cutbacks of these capitalists have a multiplier effect with them throughout the economy. So if they cut back by $40, $50 billion, it can have a magnified much more than that impact upon the economy. Let me give you another one.