Aside from which, how can you attribute to 'nothing' the 'designer schmuck' factor. It takes real labor to get the 'designer schmuck' factor to account for something -- to make people pay for it. Real people do the work that creates a brand identity. It's nothing "useful" like a shoe, but how does one calculate these things without accounting for the labor power behind the marketing that makes it important to have a starbucks coffee and pay a lot for it, when you can get a good cup of coffee elsewhere for less (I assume).
I'm not at all familiar with the technical aspects of this debate, only interested in it in terms of its philosophical and sociological importance, so forgive the ignorant question.
but also, a public thanks to Tfast for cracking me up throughout! :p
(Also, I don't know where the shoe example came from, but it said 'leather' and counted that as a raw material. If that was a serious example, is leather really a raw material that has no labor power in it? Having done a bit of hunting/trapping and tanning of hides as a young adult, labor goes into it. So, how does it get to be that leather is a raw good. Same question re: energy. Doesn't human labor power go into that? Again, possibly ignorant questions, so if it is way too much to go into Value theory 101 for an answer, no worries. (I myself hate having to explain feminist theory 101, so I understand why someone wouldn't want to go to the trouble.)
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org