This completes the reflux of the £100 paid by the industrial
 capitalists in money to the idle capitalists. Is this reflux of money a
 means of enriching the industrial capitalists, as Destutt imagines? Before
 the transaction they had a sum of values amounting to £200, 100 being
 money and 100 articles of consumption. After the transaction they have
 only one half of the original sum of values. They have once more the
 £100 in money, but they have lost the £100 in articles of consumption
 which have passed into the hands of the idle capitalists. Hence they are
 poorer by £100 instead of richer by £100. If instead of taking the
 circuitous route of first paying out £100 in money and then receiving
 this £100 in money back in payment of articles of consumption worth
 £100, they had paid rent, interest, etc., directly in the bodily form of
 their products, there would be no £100 in money flowing back to them
 from the circulation, because they would not have thrown that amount
 of money into the circulation. Via payment in kind the matter would
 simply have taken this course: they would keep one half of the surplus-product
 worth £200 for themselves and give the other half to the idle
 capitalists without any equivalent in return. Even Destutt would not have
 been tempted to declare this a means of getting richer. Of course the
 land and capital borrowed by the industrial capitalists from the idle
 capitalists and for which they have to pay a portion of their surplus-value
 in the form of ground-rent, interest, etc., are profitable for them, for this
 constitutes one of the conditions of production of commodities in general
 and of that portion of the product which constitutes surplus-product or in
 which surplus-value is represented. This profit accrues from the use of
 the borrowed land and capital, not from the price paid for them. This
 price rather constitutes a deduction from it. Otherwise one would have to
 contend that the industrial capitalists would not get richer but poorer, if
 they were able to keep the other half of their surplus-value for
 themselves instead of having to give it away. This is the confusion which
 results from mixing up such phenomena of circulation as a reflux of
 money with the distribution of the product, which is merely promoted by
 these phenomena of circulation.