The existence of two different mediums of exchange (money and capital), two different types of objects of exchange (commodities and financial assets), and the two different approaches to pricing them (cost-plus v. present valuation of future income), suggest two distinct economies (even two distinct poleis), which are shown here in Figure 3 as the “Political Economy” and the “Financial Economy.” I considered labeling each domain a “market,” but the market metaphor suggest freedom that does not exist in the state of capital. The key concept is that there are two distinct domains that are inter-dependent, but the domain of Finance/capital dominates.
I think your grappling with these issues is interesting an potentially fruitful for research. But until we see how it is fruitful, a few more observations/questions.
(1) Two distinct economies? Yes and no. On the face of it, money is not the same as capital (although you can argue that, in the capitalist mode of power, money is capital with zero expected profit); commodities are different than financial assets (though you can argue that, in the capitalist mode of power, commodities are financial assets with a zero expected profit); and the pricing of commodities is different from the pricing of future income (although, in the capitalist mode of power, this difference disappears when commodities are sold to be delivered in the future, which suggests that the difference has to do with temporarily).
(2) Regardless of my reservations in (1) , there is the issue of parsimony. I’m just wondering which of your claims requires tucking the finance/political economy duality on top of CasP. At this point, it seems to me that all your claims here can be examined without this extra duality — though, I’d be happy to see your future research prove me wrong!
(3) FIRE. You argue that real-estate and insurance were crucial in the emergence of capitalism, which is true — but how is this relevant to Finance as an analytical category?