Brand-Added Value

[Chris Burford]

At 20:52 26/12/00 -0800, you wrote:
>James Heartfield wrote:
> >
> > The economic theories of where additional value comes from reflect the
> > competing claims on the surplus, so landlords see land as productive of
> > new value, industrialists industry and merchants' trade. In a sense
> > additional value is a no-brainer: all societies above the level of Colin
> > Turnbull's benighted Ik people produce more than they consume. In
> > Britain in 1999 24 million people worked a sum total of 47 736 million
> > hours. In that time they created first goods and services to an
> > equivalent of their wages, £491.3 billion, and then an additional value
> > of £787.4 billion for their employers. The economic form that the
> > surplus takes depends on the conditions under which it is appropriated:
> > as Tribute in ancient Rome, rents in feudal Europe, industrial profits
> > under the factory system, as 'brand value' today.
>
>Interesting numbers, Jim.

I agree, and I accept that we may have to do with aggregate figures at this 
level of generalisation.

In note the 'wages' come to about £10 an hour which for an average figure 
may be broadly correct.

Comparing £491 billion to £787 billion would imply a rate of exploitation 
of about 60% which would be massive. Does the figure of £787 billion 
include raw materials and fixed capital costs?

For comparison, what is the GDP for Britain that year?

Any gross breakdown of the added value for the employers? what proportion 
of this ends up redistributed to pension and insurance funds from which 
working people arguably get some slice of capitalist profits (admittedly 
from participating in a system totally run according to the requirements of 
finance capital)?

Chris Burford