Lisa Rogers wrote: > 'Services' are consumed and that is the end, just as with consumable > commodities such as food itself. As wealth / pleasure are measured > in part by quantity / quality / variety of consumption, as everybody > needs / wants to consume some stuff, then production for consumption > is a social good. [I prefer the Olive Garden to MacDonald's, but > whatever.] Some "services" might not be consumer goods, but are purchased by capitalists as inputs or are required for the circulation of commodities. > > 3) How is the surplus-value created in services and how can be > measured? Is> there a surplus-value when a movie star earns millions > of dollars only with> one movie? Is this a redistribution of > surplus-value created somewhere??? > > The surplus-value is the difference between what the star brings in > and what she gets as 'wages'. The surplus accrues to the owner of > the means of producing movies - the studio. I think. First we have to ask: in what branches of production is surplus value being created? Commodity production involving the production of surplus value can take place in *some* "service industries", but not all. This is then an important question when it comes to calculating the magnitude of surplus value and its distribution. As for the "star", I think the above is mistaken since it identifies the source of surplus value as individual, concrete labor rather than abstract labor. Of course, from the perspective of the studio, employing the "star" is profitable. There is a question, though, of the relationship between the distribution of surplus value among capitalists and individual capitalist profitability. > But I'm no economist... No need for apologies, Lisa. PEN-L is a "club" where, hopefully, distinctions of rank and standing are unimportant. Besides, any good "progressive economist" will blush at the self-description of "economist." Jerry
