Footnotes

1. 下一段在原著中於此處作為腳註出現。，TR. ↩

2. 「Werthquote。」Menger 在第 163 至 165 頁詳細闡述了這一命題所依據的論證。但一則說明性的注釋或許 ↩

3. 本段其餘部分在原著中為腳註。，TR. ↩

4. 不僅技術性的生產資料必須被視為高階財貨，而是一般而言，凡是只有與其他高階財貨相結合才能用於滿足人類需要的財貨，皆屬高階財貨。批發商只有通過動用資本、承擔運費並使用各種特定勞動服務才能轉交給零售商的商品，必須被視為高階財貨。雜貨商手中的商品也是如此。即便是投機者，也至少為其投機對象增添了其企業家活動和資本服務，且往往還包括倉儲服務、堆棧存放等等（見 Hermann，op. cit.，第 65 頁）。 ↩

5. 「gebunden。」，TR. ↩

6. 由於在其他條件相同的情況下，一個生產過程所需的時間越長，該生產過程的生產力以及所使用的資本服務之價值都越大，因而那些可用於時間長短極為不同的生產過程，並因此能按我們的選擇在不同時點為我們確保不同價值之消費財的高階財貨，其價值便就現在而言被帶入均衡。 ↩

7. 下一段在原著中於此處作為腳註出現。，TR. ↩

8. 本段其餘部分在原著中為腳註。，TR. ↩

9. H.v. Mangoldt，Die Lehre vom Unternehmergewinn，Leipzig，1855，第 36 頁起。 ↩

10. Menger 在此處附加了一則冗長的腳註，已被併入正文，作為本章最後三段。，TR. ↩

11. N.F. Canard，Principes d'économie politique，Paris，1901，第 5 頁起；Carey，op. cit.，III，131 頁起；Frédéric Bastiat，Harmonies économiques，見 Oeuvres complètes de F. Bastiat，Paris，1893，VI，297 頁起；Max Wirth，Grundzüge der National-Oekonomie，Köln，1871，I，284 頁起；Hermann Roesler，Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre，Rostock，1864，第 500–513 頁。 ↩

12. 本段其餘部分在原著中為腳註。，TR. ↩

13. Ricardo，Principles of Political Economy and Taxation，由 E.C.K. Gonner 編，London，1891，第 44–61 頁及 392–420 頁。 ↩

14. 見 Karl Rodbertus，Zur Beleuchtung der sozialen Frage，Berlin，1890，I，89 頁起。 ↩

15. Rodbertus（op. cit.，第 117 頁起）論證道，我們的社會制度使資本與土地的所有者得以從勞動者手中奪走勞動產品的一部分，從而不勞而食。他的論證所依據的是一個錯誤的假設，即一個生產過程的全部成果都必須被視為勞動的產品。然而，勞動服務只是生產過程諸要素之一，其作為經濟財貨的程度並不高於包括土地服務和資本服務在內的其他生產要素。因此，資本家和地主並非靠他們從勞動者手中奪走的東西為生，而是靠其土地和資本的服務為生，這些服務無論對個人還是對社會都有價值，正如勞動服務一樣。 ↩

16. 一塊土地的價值由其服務的預期價值所決定，而非相反。一塊土地的價值無非是其所有未來服務貼現至現在的預期價值。因此，土地服務的預期價值越高，而資本服務的價值（利率）越低，土地的價值就越高。我們稍後將會看到，財貨的價值是其價格的基礎。在一國經濟增長時期，土地價格往往可觀察到迅速上漲，這一方面是由於地租的增加，另一方面是由於利率的下降。 ↩

17. 在 Berlin，一名每日工作 15 小時的女裁縫無法掙得其維持生計所需的收入。她的收入足以支付食物、住所和柴薪，但即便付出最為艱辛的勞作，她也掙不到足夠的錢來購置衣物（見 Carnap，載 Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift，1868，第二部分，第 165 頁）。在大多數其他大城市也可觀察到類似的情形。 ↩

18. 一名勞動者的生活水準由其收入所決定，而非其收入由其生活水準所決定。然而，由於對因果關係的奇特混淆，後一種關係卻仍常被人主張。 ↩

19. 至第七章。見第七章註 3 與註 4。—譯者。 ↩

20. 接下來的兩段在原著中作為單一腳註，出現在前面第三段開頭「勞動服務」一詞之後。，TR. ↩

21. 正如我們稍後將會看到的，資本服務在 價格形成 方面有一個特殊的特徵，其原因在於：這些服務通常無法在不將資本本身轉移到資本服務的買方手中的情況下出售。由此給資本所有者帶來了一種風險，他必須因此而獲得一筆溢價作為補償。 ↩

22. 見 Schüz，「Ueber die Renten der Grundeigenthümer und den angeblichen Conflict ihrer Interessen mit denen der übrigen Volksklassen」，Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft，XI（1855），171 頁起。 ↩

23. Adam Smith，op. cit.，第 13 頁。 ↩

24. 本段其餘部分在原著中於此處作為腳註出現。，TR. ↩

25. 我幾乎無須指出，正文中的數字並非用以數值化地表達所涉滿足之重要性的絕對量值，而僅僅是其相對量值。因此，當我例如以 40 與 20 標示兩項滿足的重要性時，我所說的不過是：對相關的經濟行事個人而言，前一項滿足的重要性是後一項的兩倍。 ↩

26. 這些考量徹底駁倒了若干經濟學著作者（例如在較近期的德國著作者當中的 Lotz 與 Rau）的主張，他們否認貿易具有生產性。商品的經濟交換對兩名交易者各自經濟處境所產生的效果，始終如同一件新的財富之物進入其所有之中一般。因此，貿易的生產性絕不亞於工業或農業活動。 ↩

27. The next paragraph appears here as a footnote in the original.,TR. ↩

28. “die menschlichen Wirthschaften”,TR. ↩

29. Carey 將商人描繪為經濟上的寄生者，理由是他們索取了源自利用既有經濟交換交易機會所生收益的一部分（op. cit., III, 23–25），此說乃建基於他對貿易生產性的錯誤觀念。 ↩

30. See Appendix F (p. 305) for the material originally appearing at this point as a footnote.,TR. ↩

31. 當我說 $B_1$B1​ 在經濟上排除了 $B_2$B2​ 時，我並非指 $B_2$B2​ 因動用物理強制力或因法律上無行為能力而被排除於交換之外。此一區分十分重要，因為 $B_2$B2​ 大可擁有數百蒲式耳的穀物，從而在物理上與法律上都有能力取得 A 的馬匹，卻仍不選擇取得它。倘若他不取得它，其理由必屬經濟性質，即：藉由放棄多於 29 蒲式耳的較大數量穀物，他並不會比不進行該交換時更妥善地滿足其需要。 ↩

32. 或會產生這樣的見解：在我們所討論的情形中，價格並非在 30 與 80 蒲式耳穀物之間形成，而會恰好確立於 30 單位。倘若我們所處理的是一場事先並未設定最低價、或最低價設定於 30 蒲式耳穀物以下的拍賣售賣，則此結論便屬正確。在上述任一情形中，A 都會因拍賣本身的性質而被迫滿足於 30 蒲式耳的價格；而一般拍賣中異常價格形成之原因，亦須在類似的關係中尋求。但倘若經濟行事個人 A 自始並不以拍賣契約束縛自身，並能完全自由地追求其利益，則在 A 與 B 之間的交換中，沒有任何經濟理由可說明一匹馬的價格不應達至 79 蒲式耳穀物，正如沒有任何理由可說明它不應確立於 30 蒲式耳一樣。 ↩

33. The next paragraph appears here as a footnote in the original.,TR. ↩

34. 沒有任何現象比下述情形更為常見：一名壟斷者以最具好戰性的方式捍衛其地位，以抵禦競爭者的進入。但同樣常見的是：一旦競爭者站穩腳跟，壟斷者便與之達成諒解。壟斷者的首要利益在於阻止競爭者立足。但倘若競爭者終究成功地穩固紮根，則壟斷者的經濟利益便在於：每當壟斷政策即使在競爭者立足之後仍被證明為可行時，便與這第二家企業聯合推行一種經修改的壟斷政策。在此類情形中，激烈的競爭通常對兩名經濟行事個人皆屬不利。因此，兩名起初彼此如此敵對的競爭者，一般都會迅速達成諒解 ↩

35. See Gustav Schmoller, “Die Lehre vom Einkommen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den Grundprinzipien der Steuerlehre,” Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, XIX (1863), 53. ↩

36. 門格爾對「效用」一詞的用法，除非時刻緊記他賦予該詞的含義，否則對現代讀者而言可能引起混淆。這一含義不容許他用此詞來指稱現今所謂「邊際效用」的概念。一件事物若其所有可得單位合在一起所產生的總效用（按我們的用法而言）大於零，即使該事物的邊際效用（按我們的用法）為零，此事物仍具有「效用」（按門格爾對該詞的用法）。一般而言，他主張「效用」這一概念是完全客觀的，並不具心理學內容。他把它描繪為一種財貨種類與一項人類需要（此處取廣義，以別於個人的「具體需要」，參見第二章注4）之間的抽象關係。因此，按門格爾的看法，效用僅僅是財貨性（從而亦是經濟性）的一項先決條件，而與價值並無數量上的關係。基於此故，他駁斥任何把「效用」與「使用價值」等同的做法（亦參見本章注3及附錄C、D、G）。當然顯而易見的是，他欠缺「邊際效用」一詞，並不妨礙他表達及闡述該概念。——譯者注。 ↩

37. 正是這一錯誤，誤導了普魯東（Proudhon），op. cit.，第59頁及以下，使他聲稱使用價值與交換價值之間存在着不可調和的矛盾。 ↩

38. Wilhelm Roscher, Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschichtlichen Standpunkte, Leipzig, 1861, p. 117; Bruno Hildebrand, “Naturalwirthschaft, Geldwirthschaft und Creditwirthschaft,” Jahrbücher für National-Oekonomie und Statistik, II (1864), 17; H.v. Scheel, ↩

39. The remainder of this paragraph and the next paragraph appear here as a single footnote in the original.,TR. ↩

40. See the first paragraph of Appendix H (p. 308) for the material originally appearing here as a footnote.,TR. ↩

41. 「有意識地導向全面實現倫理上合乎理性的人生目的。」 ↩

42. See the last seven paragraphs of Appendix H (p. 309) for the material originally appended here as a footnote.,TR. ↩

43. The next paragraph appears here as a footnote in the original.,TR. ↩

44. 商品的可銷售性，一般會隨着一個民族日益增長的需要與日益增多的財富而大為提高。然而，少數商品的可銷售性卻因這些因素而降低。有若干商品在貧窮國家可以輕易售出，但一旦該國達致經濟成熟，便幾乎變得無法出售（見 pp. 234–5）。 ↩

45. Theodor Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens, Berlin, 1860, pp. v–xx, and 167 ff.; Carnap, “Zur Geschichte der Münzwissenschaft und der Werthzeichen,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, XVI (1860), 348–396; Friedrich Kenner, “Die Anfänge des Geldes in Alterthume,” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien: Philologisch-Historische Classe, XLIII (1863), 382–490; Roscher, op. cit., pp. 36–40; Hildebrand, op. cit., p. 5; Scheel, op. cit., pp. 12–29; A.N. Bernardakis, “De l’origine des monnaies et de leurs noms,” Journal des Economistes, (Third Series), XVIII (1870), 209–245. ↩

46. For obvious reasons, the words “Geld” and “gelten” in this and the following sentence are left untranslated.,TR. ↩

47. See the first two paragraphs of Appendix I (p. 312) for material originally appearing here as a footnote.,TR. ↩

48. 習俗作為貨幣起源的一項因素，Condillac（op. cit., pp. 286–290）與 G.F. Le Trosne（De l’intérêt social, Paris, 1777, pp. 43f.）均有強調。 ↩

49. See Appendix J (p. 315) for material originally appended here as a footnote.,TR. ↩

50. See Stein, op. cit., p. 55; especially also Karl Knies, “Ueber die Geldentwerthung und die mit ihr in Verbindung gebrachten Erscheinungen,” Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, XIV (1858), 266; and Mommsen, op. cit., pp. vii–viii. ↩

51. August Böckh, Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfusse und Masse des Alterthums, Berlin, 1838, pp. 385 ff., 420 ff.; Mommsen, op. cit., p. 169; Friedrich O. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, Berlin, 1862, pp. 124ff., 188ff. ↩

52. Wilh. Wackernagel, “Gewerbe, Handel und Schiffahrt der Germanen,” Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, IX (1853), 548ff.; Jakob Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, 4th edition prepared by A. Heusler and R. Hübner, Leipzig, 1899, II, 123–124; Ad. Soetbeer, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Geld- und Münzwesens in Deutschland,” Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, I (1862), 215. ↩

53. Aloys Sprenger, Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, Berlin, 1861–65, III, 139. ↩

54. Friedrich v. Spiegel, Commentar über das Avesta, Wien, 1864–68, I, 94ff. ↩

55. Plutarch, Lives, with an English translation by Bernadotte Perrin, London: William Heinemann, 1914, I, 55; Pliny, The Natural History, translated by John Bostock and H.T. Riley, London: H.G. Bohn, 1856, IV, 5–6; Heinrich Schreiber, “Die Metallringe der Kelten als Schmuck und Geld,” Taschenbuch für Geschichte und Alterthum, II, 67–152, 240–247, and III, 401–408. ↩

56. Francesco Saverio Clavigero, The History of Mexico, Richmond, 1806, II, 188ff. ↩

57. 在 Hudson’s Bay Company 的若干地區，海狸皮至今仍是交換價值的單位。三張貂皮等於一張海狸皮，一張白狐皮等於兩張海狸皮，一張黑狐皮或一頭熊等於四張海狸皮，一支來福槍等於 15 張海狸皮（“Die Jäger im nördlichen ↩

58. Roscher, op. cit., note 13 on pp. 313–314. ↩

59. Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses, reprinted in Oeuvres de Turgot, ed. by G. Schelle, Paris, 1913–23, II, 554. See also Roscher, op. cit., pp. 297–303, Knies, op. cit., p. 262. ↩

60. See on this especially J.A.R. v. Helferich, Von den periodischen Schwankungen im Werth der edeln Metalle von der Entdeckung Amerikas bis zum Jahre 1830, Nürnberg, 1843. ↩

61. 同樣或許顯而易見的是：這些並非第五章所述、價格形成必須在其間發生的那些界限。其他詮釋固然可能，但看來很可能的是：此段中的「界限」，不過是兩名議價者在討價還價過程中作為任意起點所選定的出價與要價，賣方意在往下降，買方意在往上加。儘管 Menger 在隨後第二段中似乎暗示該段的「需求價格」與「供給價格」即第五章所述的界限，但它們顯然與此處羊毛市場的「界限」屬於同一性質。,TR. ↩

62. See note 20 above.,TR. ↩

63. 即：這些財貨對 A 而言的主觀等價物，就是 A 所預期的價格。原德文段落如下：“der voraussichtlich dafür zu erzielende Preis ist für das wirthschaftende Subject A allerdings der Regel nach das Aequivalent dieser Güter.” ,TR. ↩

64. 雖然這項差異在我們的學科中尚未得到充分的注意，但它早已是法學研究者詳細探究的對象。此問題對他們具有實際意義，無論是在涉及損害賠償請求的案件中，抑或在 ↩

65. Aristotle 早已觀察到，貨幣在人們的貿易中充當一種尺度（Ethica Nicomachea V. 5. 1133ᵇ, 16; and ix, 1. 1164ᵃ, 1）。在那些將貨幣起源完全或主要追溯至經濟行事之人對於「交換價值」或價格之尺度的需要、並將貴金屬之貨幣特性歸因於其特別適合此一目的的著作者當中，我謹在此提及以下諸人：Carlo Antonio Broggia, Trattato delle monete, (published 1743) in Scrittori classici Italiani di economia politica, Milano, 1803–05, IV, 304; Pompeo Neri, Osservazioni sopra il prezzo legale delle monete, (published 1751) in ibid., VI, 134ff.; Ferdinando Galiani, Della moneta, in ibid., XII, 23ff. and 120ff.; Antonio Genovesi, Lezioni di economia civile, in ibid., XV, 291–313 and 333–341; Francis Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy, London, 1755, II, 55–58; David Ricardo, op. cit., p. 40; Storch, op. cit., I, 45ff.; Lorenz v. Stein, System der Staatswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1852, I, 217ff.; Albert E.F. Schäffle, Das gesellschaftliche System der menschlichen Wirthschaft, Tübingen, 1873, I, 221 f. ↩

66. The next two paragraphs appear here as a footnote in the original.,TR. ↩

67. 這一理論的主要代表人物，是十七世紀偉大的英國哲學家。Hobbes 從人們對於保存其不擬即時消費之易腐財富的需要出發，並闡明此一目的如何能藉由將易腐財富轉化（“concoctio”）為金屬貨幣而達成。他亦闡明財富藉此可如何更為輕便地隨身攜帶（Leviathan, ed. by A.D. Lindsay, “Everyman’s Library,” London, 1914, p. 133）。Locke 也提出了相同的論點（Two Treatises of Government, and Further Considerations concerning Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 12th edition, London, 1824, IV, 364–365 and 139ff.）。 ↩

68. Menger does not give references to the passages he quotes from Bastian and we were unable to find them in the published works of Adolph Bastian that were accessible to us. It is possible that Menger’s information was based on an unpublished lecture or on a personal communication from Bastian.,TR. ↩

69. The next paragraph appears in the original as a footnote appended at the end of the previous paragraph.,TR. ↩

70. See Adam Smith, op. cit., p. 26. ↩

71. To Chapter I. See notes 2 and 8 of Chapter I.,TR. ↩

72. “nothing is useful but what serves to the salvation of one’s eternal life.” ↩

73. “utility itself is measured by considerations of eternal life.” ↩

74. 「Center of gravity」（重心）是「Schwerpunkt」的字面翻譯。Menger的標題為「Ueber den Wechsel im ökonomischen Schwerpunkte des Güterwerthes.」若不喪失原文的韻味，便無法給出較不彆扭的譯法。——譯者註。 ↩

75. “possessions that do not yield an annual product, such as precious objects, products destined for consumption.” ↩

76. “what is suited to the satisfaction of human needs.” ↩

77. “every means to a purpose of a man.” ↩

78. “the judgment we pass upon the utility of things . . . makes goods of them.” ↩

79. “those [things) which man recognizes as means to this end [satisfaction of psychological and physical needs].” ↩

80. “all that is recognized as being applicable to the satisfaction of a true human need” (Menger’s italics). ↩

81. “transferable rents made exclusive by private control of supply and elimination of competition.” ↩

82. To Chapter II. See notes 9 and 14 of Chapter II.,TR. ↩

83. “what can be obtained only for a definite sacrifice in the form of labor or monetary consideration.” ↩

84. “that are capable of being traded, or that, at least, facilitate trade.” ↩

85. “ends and means of economizing.” ↩

86. We are forced, so to speak, to buy these . . . goods by labor, economy, abstinence,,in a word by real sacrifices. ↩

87. “One cannot separate the idea of property from these goods. They would not exist if exclusive possession of them were not assured to the person who has acquired them. . . . On the other hand, property presupposes some form of society, contracts, and laws. Hence wealth so acquired may be called social wealth.” ↩

88. 對應第三章第1節。參見第三章註1。譯者註。 ↩

89. 我們未能找到此項文獻。然而我們推測，Menger 所指的應為下列著作：Dorpat, Kaiserliche Universität, Facultätsschriften der Kaiserlichen Universität Dorpat, dargebracht zur Feier ihres funfzigjährigen Bestehens, 等等。Dorpat, 1852（參見 Catalogue of the Printed Books in the Library of the British Museum, London, 1881–1900, I, 202）。譯者註。 ↩

90. “the relationship recognized by human judgment that a thing can be a means to the fulfilment of some desired end.” ↩

91. “in a number of instances, the theory of value . . . [is] . . . actually erected entirely on a combination of the two meanings of the word value.” ↩

92. “in order to be able to speak of economizing or of economic goods, a potential or actual relationship between persons and impersonal external objects consciously established by men must always exist. This relationship can be considered with reference to the economic object or from the standpoint of the economizing individual. Looked at objectively it is the utility of the good. Looked at subjectively it is the value of the good. Utility (serviceability, usefulness) is the suitability of a thing to serve a human purpose. . . . But value is the importance the good has, because of its utility, for the conscious economic purposes of the economizing individual.” ↩

93. “the importance of a good because of the sacrifices made in obtaining it.” ↩

94. “the traditional distinction between use value and exchange value is incorrect, and the concept of value cannot by any means be tied to the factor of things having useful employments. On the contrary, the concept of value is uniform, designating the wealth-character of things, and becoming a concrete phenomenon as a result of the institution of laws with respect to property.”（引文中的斜體為 Menger 所加。）譯者註。 ↩

95. 對應第三章第2節。參見第三章註11。譯者註。 ↩

96. 此處所引 Aristotle 的段落，是 Menger 所提供的德文翻譯之逐字英文譯本。在 W. D. Ross 的標準英譯本（The Works of Aristotle, London, Oxford University Press, 1925, Vol. IX）中，該段落如下：“all goods must therefore be measured by some one thing. . . . That demand holds things together as a single unit is shown by the fact that when men do not need one another . . . they do not exchange, as we do when someone wants what one has oneself.”譯者註。 ↩

97. “since the dispositions of human minds vary, the value of things varies.” ↩

98. “the esteem value of an object, for an isolated individual, is precisely equal to the portion of his total faculties [labor] that answers his desire for the object or that he wishes to employ for its satisfaction.” ↩

99. “A thing is said to be useful when it serves for one of our needs; … according to this utility we esteem it more or less. … Now, this esteem is what we call value.” ↩

100. “Since use value is always a relation of a thing to man, the use value of every species of goods is determined by the magnitude and rank of the human needs the species of goods satisfies. Where there are no men and no needs, no use value exists. The total use value of any species of goods remains unchanged, therefore, as long as the needs of human society remain unchanged, and the use value of a single unit of the species is equal to this total use value divided by the number of units. Hence the larger the total number of units, the smaller becomes the portion of use value attributed to each unit from the total use value of the species and vice versa.” ↩

101. “the requisites for the estimation of the use value of goods cannot be found anywhere but in the fundamental elements of the concept of use value itself.” ↩

102. “Thus the magnitudes of the use value of goods depend (a) on the intensity of the human needs they satisfy, and (b) on the intensity with which they satisfy these human needs. . . . Hence we find a classification and scale of human needs to which corresponds a classification and scale of species of goods.” ↩

103. “Economic activity will be engaged in more energetically the more urgent a person’s need for a good and the more difficult it is to procure the good corresponding to that need. The more these two factors (intensity of desire and degree of difficulty of procurement) operate upon one another, the more strongly does the importance of the good enter into the consciousness that guides economic activity. All propositions about the magnitude of value and its changes are reducible to this fundamental relationship.” 此段落在我們唯一能取得的 Schäffle 文章重印版中無法找到。重印本很可能只是 Schäffle 原文的不完整版本。但無論是否如此，從 Schäffle 的其他著作（例如 Das gesellschaftliche System der menschlichen Wirthschaft, Tübingen, 1873, I, 172）中可以十分清楚地看到，Menger 的引文準確地呈現了 Schäffle 的思想。譯者註。 ↩

104. "The relationship of the measure of a given good to the run of goods in general." ↩

105. "The true measure of the value of a good is found by dividing the magnitude of the good in question into the magnitudes of other goods. In order to be able to do this a common denominator for the magnitudes of all goods must be found. But this common denominator, or homogeneous element in goods can be found only in their homogeneous nature,that is, in the fact that all true goods originate from the six elements, matter, labor, production, need, usefulness, and true consumability, since if one of these elements disappears, an object ceases to be a good. These elements are contained in a given good only to a particular degree, and their magnitude determines the measure of each true good taken separately. From this it follows that the quantitative relationship of all the separate goods to one another, or the general measure of their value, is given by the ratio between these component elements of goods and their magnitude in one good relative to another. To determine and calculate this relationship is therefore to determine the true measure of value." ↩

106. 對應第三章第3節。參見第三章註15。譯者註。 ↩

107. "We find that the development of all nations was analogous to this extent, that capital was everywhere able to develop its economic power strongly only after the introduction and widespread use of metallic money and to reveal its more extensive power only at higher levels of civilization." ↩

108. 對應第五章。參見第五章註1。譯者註。 ↩

109. “what is sold or supplied, wholesale or retail, in shops, stores, at fairs, markets, etc.” ↩

110. “what is superfluous to a person for his support and which he passes on to others.” ↩

111. “A commodity is anything . . . that . . . can be given to someone else, especially in exchange for something else.” ↩

112. “stocks of goods that are kept ready for exchange.” ↩

113. "each product of an enterprise appearing as an independent good." ↩

114. 對應第八章第1節。參見第八章註5。譯者註。 ↩

115. “a horse . . . or some other monetary payment.” ↩

116. 我們未能核實此項引文。譯者註。 ↩

117. 「備妥以供交換或出售的財貨。」 ↩

118. 「凡意圖出售的財貨。」 ↩

119. 「意圖用於貿易的剩餘財貨。」 ↩

120. 「貴重物品以及意圖出售的財貨。」 ↩

121. 「流通中或意圖供流通的產品。」 ↩

122. 「意圖用於貿易的各種產品。」 ↩