>I think that most today's prices, at least in the developed world,
>are driven by the rent component, not by the reproduction of labour
>power (i..e. the actual cost of production) component. That is to
>say, a garment that sells for say $50 at Macy's has about $2
>reproduction of labor power component (i.e. actual production cost)
>and $48 in economic rent, i.e. charge for the Macy or other designer
>schmuck brand.
>
>I believe that LOTV does not say much about that $48, which IMHO
>limits its usefulness in explaining how modern economy works.
You're forgetting the labour of the copyright lawyers, the judges, the politicians who enact the copyright laws, the lobbyists who lobby for them, the diplomats who negotiate the international treaties, the investigators who track the pirates, the police who prosecute them and all the rest.
Those people all have to be highly trained and motivated. So don't forget the back-office industries which support them either. From the education system, to the luxury car manufacturers. Artificial monopolies of things which would, if left to their own devices, be virtually free, can't be manufactured with cheap labour.
The actual production cost of things like software include all that. You might think that most of it isn't socially *necessary* labour, but that would be to forget the context. In the context of capitalism, it *is* necessary. Shortages must be artificially maintained, or else the economy would collapse.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas