> The slave trade, yes, because that's a form of noncapitalist labor > that nonetheless produces commodities that enter capitalist > circulation - but loot? How would metals and other treasures provide > fuel? Wouldn't they be more like an increase of money that doesn't > emerge from an increase in productive capacity, and therefore is > more > likely to raise the price level than stimulate accumulation?
Michael is right: there was a logic to bullionism. A country that had a trade surplus could use its excess bullion on the military, to conquer others. Much of this -- e.g., in the case of Spain -- did go to waste, rather than stimulating accumulation. But in England, it "greased the wheels of commerce" to a greater extent. JD
