>We were talking about whether trademarks were capital.
>DH channeled Naomi K to make the point that the consumption
>benefits of brands were 'collective hallucinations,' or in
>his words 'wacky,' which fit my point that what was involved
>was criticism of the consumption habits of the masses, and any
>such criticism ought to be measured carefully for elitist or
>austerity policy implications.
Nonbrand capital - a factory or a piece of software, say - contributes to social wealth, even though much of that contribution is appropriated by capitalists. Brand capital contributes to the returns of the trademark holder, but doesn't increase social wealth in any meaningful sense; the inflated markups are a diversion from money that could otherwise have been spent elsewhere. The first kind of capital increases the volume of income and goods; the second just redistributes it.
Doug