I have been reading George Reisman’s “Capitalism a Treatise on Economics”. He stated that labor is not wealth. When you get a hair cut, that service is not wealth. I tried to follow along, but he went on to the next topic with me still not grasping his idea. It sure seems to me that anything that is bought or sold, especially on a wide scale has to be within the realm of wealth. Can anyone help clarify this for me?
Services are consumed immediately. They can’t accumulate.
Being a skilled hair stylist on the other hand may be considered wealth, a form of human capital.
maybe point me to the section you are referring to? I know he qoutes J.S.Mill, the demand for goods is not demand for labour. this just means consumers care about the products they get not the labour that went into it. this is true. also i seem to remember reisman acknowledging that all services can be described as material goods, hence i think that wealth can be goods. i.e. transport service. without it there is a computer in a shop. with it, there is a computer in my house. the material benefit of the ‘transport service’ was to put the computer in a particular place, the location affects my subjective valuation and i might consider myself more wealthy having things i want in my house, than waiting in shops for me. but maybe i glossed over the section you referred to an didnt understand it myself. its sure a big book with lots in it!