If this is going where i think its going then I agree with this. If you are looking at your stocks based on the yield it will give you by looking at the price opposed to looking into the company and seeing what they have going on, then you will not get the best results. Looking into the news of the company and collecting your own data rather than finding a stock with a high risk high reward may be a smarter option when not much is known about the company.

This still seems to be true in the modern day stock exchange. Its all about getting there first and making the most amount of money the ride takes you for. The way it is put in this article makes the stock exchange sound very selfish towards a single investor. I never really thought of it this way but i guess when you sell your selling something you don't believe in anymore and someone else has your potentially dying stock.That dies sound pretty selfish when its written out.

I'm just a little confused on the way the word maintenance is used. is the author trying to say that as long as a person is okay with takimg a chance and putting money on a company? Since their was less research on companies it seems like it was more of a wild guess when choosing stocks.

If Gold is no longer as important as it is and it doesn't matter how spread out the gold is then wouldn't the world need something else like gold? Wouldn't we always need some form of means to back the money?

Does this make it hard to look at interest rates as an economic indicator? If the interest rate is not proportional to the economy and it is actually set lower than it should be to correct the economy, then at the time of that specific interest rate the country is being experimented with to settle the curve. So this wouldn't show a current state rather an opposite predictor of interest rate to settle the banks.

I never looked at these two terms as the same but always connected them in my head through a bank. When hearing this I was connecting the two through investing money at a bank. You could take a loan out at the bank with an interest rate and then use that money to invest in a business. From that business you make the money back and pay the bank the interest rate as well.

Labour Power seems to be attached to the point that selling a product is equal to the amount of labour hours involved in the process to create a good. In my experiences working for a wage, you have people that work hard and you have others that slack off and try to do as little as possible to receive the same wage. Reading this it was hard to picture a world where your good is equal to the amount of hours put in because everyone works at different paces. It is hard for me to picture a fair selling price for a good when one worker could take longer than another. In today's world we have the incentive of a raise, which in the end rewards workers for producing faster and being more productive. I wonder if any incentives will be talked about during this time period and if they help differentiate workers from one another.

It seems as though just like today you want to work for yourself so you do not have to work for free or pay someone else profits. If I am reading this correctly, it would be more profitable for a farmer to save up and get thier own land so that they do not have to work under someone else's conditions. It would be more profitable to get paid for your labor in form of payment for the goods created. Selling the goods to a capitalist rather than working for a wage for someone else.

I was a little confused with where this section was heading. If the farmers have a good at the end of their work day, couldn't they sell it for more forcing the capitalists to sell for more? This would make the laborers a lot more important. Or are they held down by the rent rising if they decide to sell for more? It just seems like the farmers should be making more guidelines instead of following them.