Shane Mage write: "For a Marxist, this definitively exposes the "productivity gains" swindle: the "retail and financial services" sectors, which employ entirely unproductive labor (warehousing being better included under transportation than under retail) can have no productivity gains because they produce nothing (in the Marxian sense)."
Might part of the problem lie in a static view of finance as inherently incapable of value-production? Surely finance, in the same way that industry has become more financial (by expanding credit provisioning and financial investing etc), has also expanded its range of operations into value-producing activities. For example, when I worked at Mellon Financial we produced tax returns, investment reports, and many custodial services in which my labor added value to a product sold to clients. Is menial physical labor the only labor that adds value? Jayson Funke Graduate School of Geography Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester, MA 01610 -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shane Mage Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:12 PM To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Queery about Greenspan and productivity Daniel Davies wrote: >the productivity gains seemed to be >very heavily weighted to retail and to financial services, which are the two >sectors where it's most difficult to separate productivity and value-added. >But as far as financial services is concerned, productivity has genuinely >increased massively... For a Marxist, this definitively exposes the "productivity gains" swindle: the "retail and financial services" sectors, which employ entirely unproductive labor (warehousing being better included under transportation than under retail) can have no productivity gains because they produce nothing (in the Marxian sense). Shane Mage "This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30
