[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Imari]

If you manufacture a car, you will be able to export it. You can't do that when washing a car or maintaining a car.

People can't make their own cars. A factory has to do it. But I can maintain and wash my own car.

Maintaining and washing the car is only there for convenience. If people, for some odd reason, want to wash their own cars, that service is out of business. But it's hard for someone to say, I'm going to build my own car from start to finish.

It sort of works for specific examples like washing a car, but there are services that require specialist skills or equipment. Like a medical clinic, for example. One can do those things themselves, but you're sacrificing a huge amount of quality for a minimal cost saving.

Likewise, someone could make their own car fi they really wanted, but unless they're an automotive engineer and have a ton of equipment in their garage it's likely to cost them a lot for a pretty average car.

Both can be done either way, but it's more or less "efficient" as a rational consumer.

So the only real difference is that one can be shipped outside of your "nation"s economic zone? I'm not sure that's the case. I mean, you can do that with services too, one can easily export expertise, design, management, and so on. Hell, exporting call centres is a running joke in most western nations. We actually have ads on TV now that brag that you'll get to talk to an Australian when you call a help line.

So back to the question, how is wealth created? And what is the economic difference between service and manufacturing? Obviously, there's somewhat of a practical difference, but economically?

 

[Tornado]

Oh come on.

And "Get me the president's agent" being an actual line? Some of this stuff really is a bit too on the nose.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How is a 10 year old in a third world country more skilled? That argument is utter BS.

"Skilled labour" refers to a worker with a particular set of skills or knowledge that enables them to better perform a job - for example, using a particular type of machinery. Just because you graduated high school, that doesn't mean that you're automatically a skilled worker.

But you just said people want those jobs

They want the jobs, but it's a question of whether or not the jobs are available. To make themselves more employable, they can acquire new skills. Some skills can be learned informally, through on-the-job training. For example, when I worked in a fruit shop, I learned how to use the potato hopper by having another employee show me how. But the really valuable skills required external training; for example, if I wanted to learn how to use the forklift, I had to go through a licencing programme.

Here's the problem: training costs money, so who is going to pay for it? It can be very expensive, so having the employee pay out of pocket isn't usually an answer. So training is paid for by employers, but they can't pay for everyone to get the same skills - even with government subsidies for training.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's got nothing to do with a skilled workforce. It's a potential workforce, but it doesn't necessarily have the skills to do the jobs required.

Or many of their jobs have moved overseas or south of the border.

It's not that you don't know how, it's that you won't do it. Why do you think people get upset about immigrants taking jobs? It's because they are willing to do the jobs nobody else wants to do.

Quite the generalization. Source please.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

View attachment 617722

Oh come on.

And "Get me the president's agent" being an actual line? Some of this stuff really is a bit too on the nose.

I wonder what the time line will be in modern movies that depict the future or try as Running Man did...

Then again not everyone can get it nearly right as Back to the Future

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So back to the question, how is wealth created?

By exporting human hair and rocket launchers to China, of course.

 

[Imari]

By exporting human hair and rocket launchers to China, of course.

You're being facetious, as usual, but Australia is still pushing to have some native defence manufacturing. Enabling cheaper exports is part of that.

==========

Still, it seems like no one can put a simple answer to what is, on the face of it, a simple question. Interesting.

I suppose one doesn't technically need to know where the money comes from in order to talk sensibly about economics, but it seems like it would help. I mean, the two important things with wealth are where does it come from and how does it move.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You're being facetious, as usua

No, I just found it to be a funny story, that's all.

Australia is still pushing to have some native defence manufacturing.

Emphasis on some. And even then, it's highly specialised.

 

[Imari]

Emphasis on some. And even then, it's highly specialised.

As it should be. That's the whole point.

If countries like Australia and the US can't compete with the cheap labour pools of the manufacturing sector in Asia, then they should specialise and make the most of their expertise and high quality production facilities. If you can't compete on price, compete on quality.

One doesn't have to make everything oneself.

 

[Dotini]

The big question arises as unemployment rates approach and exceed 50% both nationally and globally as automation replaces humans. How are humans supposed to employ their time and be paid? How are they to exist? I doubt human nature will make such an environment peaceful and serene. How does it make sense that humans should continue to reproduce as their meaningful services are no longer required and they become an obvious burden to themselves, their families and their nations?

 

[Danoff]

How is wealth created in a service economy?

At the risk of asking a really stupid question, how is wealth created at all?

I think the way your question was posed triggered me to noticed that if you look at it a certain way, basically all jobs are "service" related. The service of collecting and refining ore. The service of designing or assembling good products. And so on.

Economically, is there really much of a difference between providing the service of maintaining a car and the service of manufacturing a car? Or the service of washing a car? They're all things that a consumer is willing to pay someone else to do.

Performing a service for someone frees up their time.

Fundamentally, all you have to do is create something of value to create wealth. For example, if everyone stayed home, building a car would not create wealth. You need people to desire the car for some purpose to have created wealth. I like to give farming as a concrete example of wealth creation. So if instead of producing 1 unit of corn you invent something that allows you to produce 2 units of corn, you've now doubled your output. Since all people have the same amount of currency to buy the products on the market but there is now an additional 1 unit of corn on the market, you deflated the money supply - which is an increase in wealth for everyone who holds currency. It also makes it easier for those who don't hold currency to get it.

Now what happens if nobody likes corn? What happens if you create 10 Billion units of corn and demand doesn't grow to meet the supply? Now all of the sudden you haven't created as much wealth (per unit of corn). Maybe you didn't create any at all if nobody likes corn. Even when creating tangible goods, you only generate wealth if you're creating something of value in the marketplace.

Jumping to about the biggest opposite extreme I can think of, suppose you could create beanie babies while they were a "thing". You're doing exactly the same thing as the guy who makes an extra unit of corn. Meeting demand by creating something of value in the marketplace - growing the number of products and deflating the money supply. If the market suddenly stops thinking beanie babies are valuable, the wealth you created can dry up. Similarly, Blockbuster video created wealth by providing a tangible product that was desired, and is no longer desired.

So if you create a work of fiction that entertains people (but doesn't serve any real purpose other than that), you're still creating wealth. The total number of products available for purchase in the market has grown, the new product is desired and value is exchanged for it, the same amount of currency now buys more products - deflation.

There's no bright line between goods and services.

There are some tricky distinctions between goods and services in terms of resale and the ability to transfer the item. It's hard to sell someone else a massage you got. But, by the same token, it's hard to sell someone else a cheeseburger you ate or a car you drove into the ground.

 

[Imari]

Performing a service for someone frees up their time.

Fundamentally, all you have to do is create something of value to create wealth. For example, if everyone stayed home, building a car would not create wealth. You need people to desire the car for some purpose to have created wealth. I like to give farming as a concrete example of wealth creation. So if instead of producing 1 unit of corn you invent something that allows you to produce 2 units of corn, you've now doubled your output. Since all people have the same amount of currency to buy the products on the market but there is now an additional 1 unit of corn on the market, you deflated the money supply - which is an increase in wealth for everyone who holds currency. It also makes it easier for those who don't hold currency to get it.

Now what happens if nobody likes corn? What happens if you create 10 Billion units of corn and demand doesn't grow to meet the supply? Now all of the sudden you haven't created as much wealth (per unit of corn). Maybe you didn't create any at all if nobody likes corn. Even when creating tangible goods, you only generate wealth if you're creating something of value in the marketplace.

Jumping to about the biggest opposite extreme I can think of, suppose you could create beanie babies while they were a "thing". You're doing exactly the same thing as the guy who makes an extra unit of corn. Meeting demand by creating something of value in the marketplace - growing the number of products and deflating the money supply. If the market suddenly stops thinking beanie babies are valuable, the wealth you created can dry up. Similarly, Blockbuster video created wealth by providing a tangible product that was desired, and is no longer desired.

So if you create a work of fiction that entertains people (but doesn't serve any real purpose other than that), you're still creating wealth. The total number of products available for purchase in the market has grown, the new product is desired and value is exchanged for it, the same amount of currency now buys more products - deflation.

There's no bright line between goods and services.

There are some tricky distinctions between goods and services in terms of resale and the ability to transfer the item. It's hard to sell someone else a massage you got. But, by the same token, it's hard to sell someone else a cheeseburger you ate or a car you drove into the ground.

Good explanation. Thanks.

I think some people still tend to think of farming and manufacturing in the sense of "making money", kind of like in the good old days when we were on the gold standard and mining gold out of the ground was literally creating money that didn't exist before.

But with a fiat currency, I feel like even the act of "creation" is just another kind of service. A farmer is selling his time to manage and harvest crops. A car manufacturer sells their expertise and some time with their assets to turn raw materials into a vehicle. And so on. In a way it can all be looked at as transformative, and because there's no way to actually "create" more money (if you're not the federal reserve) neither commodities or services are really that functionally different as far as I can tell.

I do like the idea of wealth creation being the modification of the value of the currency though. I guess that's why rich people get richer, they're in the position to have the most influence on the value of the currency as well as benefit most from it becoming more valuable.

 

[Danoff]

Good explanation. Thanks.

I think some people still tend to think of farming and manufacturing in the sense of "making money", kind of like in the good old days when we were on the gold standard and mining gold out of the ground was literally creating money that didn't exist before.

Ironically, digging gold out of the ground when you're on a gold standard is not creation of wealth, it's dilution of the money supply. By adding to the pool of available money (gold), you've increased the amount of money (gold) that can be used to buy the new good (gold). As long as the new money has an inherent value (gold has some inherent value), and as long as that inherent value is the same as the amount of the dilution, you've not affected anyone else's gold. Imagine, though, what would happen to the price of gold if you found a gold nugget that was 10x the size of all gold in the world ever found. If you went to sell it the price of everyone else's gold would plummet.

But with a fiat currency, I feel like even the act of "creation" is just another kind of service. A farmer is selling his time to manage and harvest crops. A car manufacturer sells their expertise and some time with their assets to turn raw materials into a vehicle. And so on. In a way it can all be looked at as transformative, and because there's no way to actually "create" more money (if you're not the federal reserve) neither commodities or services are really that functionally different as far as I can tell.

I would say that this isn't specific to a fiat currency. The same effect is present on a gold standard or any other standard.

I do like the idea of wealth creation being the modification of the value of the currency though. I guess that's why rich people get richer, they're in the position to have the most influence on the value of the currency as well as benefit most from it becoming more valuable.

It's hard even for one person, even an extremely rich person, to make a big splash in the GDP of the US - which is what it takes to seriously affect the value of the currency. Even if they did, the federal reserve would just say "thanks" and inflate the money supply for their own purposes (which goes back into the economy anyway, so it's not entirely a net loss... unless they literally waste that money doing nothing). Furthermore, rich people tend not to hold currency. People think of inflation as a tax on the rich, because rich people have a lot of money and it devalues money. But really inflation is a devaluation of currency. Rich people tend to own property (houses, land, jets, cars, stocks, artwork, etc). Usually when you talk to a super rich person they'll say something like "I like to have a certain portion of my net wealth in US dollars, but also some in foreign currencies as well. Not too much though, because of inflation". To find someone who is drastically affected by inflation or deflation you need to find someone whose entire net worth is in currency, one currency - poor people. Weirdly enough, to find a poor person who would really benefit from deflation, you'd have to find someone who is 100% in cash, with no debt. Because debt is cheaper under inflation.

That's part of the reason that the federal reserve doesn't like deflation - because it would encourage banks to loan money to you and even pay you to hold it, in exchange for just giving it back later when it's worth more. It creates hoarding and some very weird economic principles. Consumer electronics is a good example... "I'm gonna wait a year until the prices come down on these TVs".

So you create wealth by making something of value and exchanging it in the market. You've created it for yourself, and you create it for everyone else in the form of the US government taxing everyone a little less to cover their expenses by making it slightly easier for them to inflate the money supply without adverse effects.

 

[GTsail]

Performing a service for someone frees up their time.
Fundamentally, all you have to do is create something of value to create wealth***

After reading your posts about creating wealth out of "thin air", I thought of the following example:

Lets say there is a hotel in Boston near the theatre district and the people who stay at the hotel like to go to the theatre each night (which is why they stay at this particular hotel).

So each day, the hotel guests walk over to the local theatre and buy tickets for that night's show.

Creation of wealth out of thin air:
An enterprising concierge at the Hotel decides to create some wealth for herself. During lunch-time she buys ten theatre tickets. The concierge then sells these tickets for one-dollar (plus the regular ticket price) to each guest who wants to go to the theatre that night. The concierge is providing the "service" of buying theatre tickets and the "service" is valued at one-dollar because it has freed up time for the hotel's guests because they no longer need to walk over to the theatres themselves to buy their own tickets.

The hotel guests now have slightly more time to pursue other pursuits (like writing another chapter in the book that they are writing)

 

[samurai8juice]

It sort of works for specific examples like washing a car, but there are services that require specialist skills or equipment. Like a medical clinic, for example. One can do those things themselves, but you're sacrificing a huge amount of quality for a minimal cost saving.

I don't think a doctor is considered service in the same sense as a car wash. I mean you can cut out less doctor and dentist visits to save money, but a doctor or a dentist is irreplaceable (until robots).

Likewise, someone could make their own car if they really wanted, but unless they're an automotive engineer and have a ton of equipment in their garage it's likely to cost them a lot for a pretty average car.

Yeah, they could. But 99.9% of cars aren't home made.

So the only real difference is that one can be shipped outside of your "nation"s economic zone? I'm not sure that's the case.

By an economist's definition, it probably is the case (but definitely not the only real difference).

Services really don't make goods. Now obviously, mines don't make iron, but you understand what I mean. Manufacturers make goods, usable. By the common person. Or they make goods to be further produced but another manufacturer. Or both.

I mean, you can do that with services too, one can easily export expertise, design, management, and so on. Hell, exporting call centres is a running joke in most western nations. We actually have ads on TV now that brag that you'll get to talk to an Australian when you call a help line.

I mean hard exports. Exports on a nation's balance sheet. Exports that come in airports and seaports. I don't believe call centers and expertise is considered exporting a good. Probably closer to outsourcing.

I mean you are exporting, but not in a sense of trade.

 

[Imari]

I don't think a doctor is considered service in the same sense as a car wash. I mean you can cut out less doctor and dentist visits to save money, but a doctor or a dentist is irreplaceable (until robots).

Ah, so you're using the term "service" to separate between necessities and luxuries. Gotcha.

Yeah, they could. But 99.9% of cars aren't home made.

What difference does that make?

By an economist's definition, it probably is the case (but definitely not the only real difference).

What are the other real differences?

Services really don't make goods. Now obviously, mines don't make iron, but you understand what I mean. Manufacturers make goods, usable. By the common person. Or they make goods to be further produced but another manufacturer. Or both.

I'm not sure I do understand what you mean, because that was the original point of the question. I think that the distinction is fuzzy at best, and probably non-existent.

You give someone else money to do something you don't want to do or can't do yourself. Sometimes you end up with a physical product out of that, sometimes you don't. As above, a doctor isn't considered a service but you don't end up with a physical good.

If you hire a builder to build you a house, is that a service or a good? How many other examples can you think of that skirt the line of what you consider to be a service or a good? Because those will help me understand your thinking, even if you can't describe it clearly. At the moment, I find your explanation unclear.

I mean hard exports. Exports on a nation's balance sheet. Exports that come in airports and seaports. I don't believe call centers and expertise is considered exporting a good. Probably closer to outsourcing.

I mean you are exporting, but not in a sense of trade.

Well, trade is happening. One group is trading money for service. That's trade. It's not exporting a good because that word has a specific meaning, but it is trade.

The only difference I can see is that one is physical goods and the other is not. Which as we saw at the start with the example of the doctor, does not mean that something is a service or is a luxury.

Not to be rude, but I feel like you need to clarify exactly which is what, because it seems like your categorisations are a bit fuzzy. Or at least clarify what you're using your words to mean, because I feel like you're using some of them to mean things that aren't general usage. Like "trade".

 

[Danoff]

I mean hard exports. Exports on a nation's balance sheet. Exports that come in airports and seaports. I don't believe call centers and expertise is considered exporting a good. Probably closer to outsourcing.

I mean you are exporting, but not in a sense of trade.

Labor is an export. Call centers are a good example of exported labor. At my previous job we were given very strict regulations about what is considered an export and what is not - because exports are tightly controlled - especially in my area. As an engineer, when communicating with people in certain countries, even just saying something, like how to build something, or a way to solve a particular math problem, can be considered an export. My transferring of technical knowledge, just by speaking with someone overseas, can be considered a breach of US export law. In fact, transferring certain technical knowledge is considered an export of munitions.

Background and Regulatory Overview
Concerns about the inappropriate transfer of new information, technologies, and products with military applications outside the U.S. have led to the passage of two laws in the late 1970's that control exports of selected technologies and products.

1. INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR): The Arms Export Control Act (Sec. 38) of 1976, as amended (P.L. 90-629), authorizes (22 U.S.C., Chapter 39, Subchapter III, Sec. 2778 entitled Control of Arms Exports and Imports) the President to:
   • designate those items which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services, and
   • control their import and the export.
   The items so designated shall constitute the United States Munitions List (22 CFR Part 121) and are regulated through the U.S. Department of State, Office of Defense Trade Controls.
   
   
2. EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR): The Export Administration Act of 1979 authorized the President to regulate exports of civilian goods and technologies (equipment, materials, software, and technology, including data and know-how) that have military applications (dual-use items). Such controls have traditionally been temporary, and when it has lapsed, the President has declared a national emergency and maintained export control regulations under the authority of an executive order. 1
   The items so designated shall constitute the United States Commerce Control List (15 CFR Part 774 2) and are regulated through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security.
   

When India exports labor to us in return for US currency, that is trade. We're trading worthless pieces of paper in exchange for usable labor with the expectation that one day those worthless pieces of paper will be traded back for equivalent (slightly less because inflation) usable labor. When we import more goods and services than we export, that's known as a trade deficit. In other words, people are giving us more than they're taking - which benefits our economy.

 

[mister dog]

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Presumably, the interview was just a front so Hannity could personally arrest Assange himself?

 

[samurai8juice]

Labor is an export. Call centers are a good example of exported labor. At my previous job we were given very strict regulations about what is considered an export and what is not - because exports are tightly controlled - especially in my area. As an engineer, when communicating with people in certain countries, even just saying something, like how to build something, or a way to solve a particular math problem, can be considered an export. My transferring of technical knowledge, just by speaking with someone overseas, can be considered a breach of US export law. In fact, transferring certain technical knowledge is considered an export of munitions.

I had no idea.

If you hire a builder to build you a house, is that a service or a good? How many other examples can you think of that skirt the line of what you consider to be a service or a good? Because those will help me understand your thinking, even if you can't describe it clearly. At the moment, I find your explanation unclear.

Well the materials he'd be using are manufactured goods. And I guess he'd be providing you a service by building your house. The actual house obviously isn't a service, but I wouldn't consider it a manufactured good either.

Manufacturing is the value added production of merchandise for use or sale using labour and machines, tools, chemical and biological processing, or formulation. The term may refer to a range of human activity, from handicraft to high tech, but is most commonly applied to industrial production, in which raw materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale. Such finished goods may be sold to other manufacturers for the production of other, more complex products, such as aircraft, household appliances or automobiles, or sold to wholesalers, who in turn sell them to retailers, who then sell them to end users and consumers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing

In economics, a service is an economic activity where an immaterial exchange of value occurs. When a service such as labor is performed the buyer does not take exclusive ownership of that which is purchased, unless agreed upon by buyer and seller. The benefits of such a service, if priced, are held to be self-evident in the buyer's willingness to pay for it. Public services are those, that society (nation state, fiscal union, regional) as a whole pays for, through taxes and other means.

Using resources, skill, ingenuity, and experience, service providers effect benefit to service consumers. Thereby, service providers participate in an economy without the restrictions of carrying inventory (stock) or the need to concern themselves with bulky raw materials. Furthermore, their investment in expertise does require consistent service marketing and upgrading in the face of competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(business)

These sum up manufacturing and service perfectly. Much better than I did.

Ah, so you're using the term "service" to separate between necessities and luxuries. Gotcha.

Technically they're both still services though. But you probably could break it down into necessary and luxurious services.

What are the other real differences?

I don't know any other real difference. But I know for a fact a difference is there.

I'm not sure I do understand what you mean, because that was the original point of the question. I think that the distinction is fuzzy at best, and probably non-existent.

Yeah I really didn't explain it too well. Part of what I said was wrong anyways.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Presumably, the interview was just a front so Hannity could personally arrest Assange himself?

The Russian's clearly stopped him from doing it...

 

[GTsail]

@samurai8juice -

Your Wikipedia definition of: "In economics, a service is an economic activity where an immaterial exchange of value occurs" doesn't really seem to get it right. I think that this Wikipedia definition is outdated.

Right now, I think that about 75% of the US Economy is considered a "service" economy. How can the "value" of 75% of the US Economy be considered "immaterial"?

It seems to me that most services are providing a substantial "value" to the person who is purchasing the service. For example, if a doctor's "service" is to re-set your broken leg, which now allows you to go back to running marathons, wouldn't you value this "service" quite highly? Or alternatively, if a doctor's "service" is to repair your eyesight, which allows you to go back to racing cars at La Sarthe, wouldn't you value this "service" quite highly?

 

[samurai8juice]

@samurai8juice -

Your Wikipedia definition of: "In economics, a service is an economic activity where an immaterial exchange of value occurs" doesn't really seem to get it right. I think that this Wikipedia definition is outdated.

Right now, I think that about 75% of the US Economy is considered a "service" economy. How can the "value" of 75% of the US Economy be considered "immaterial"?

It seems to me that most services are providing a substantial "value" to the person who is purchasing the service. For example, if a doctor's "service" is to re-set your broken leg, which now allows you to go back to running marathons, wouldn't you value this "service" quite highly? Or alternatively, if a doctor's "service" is to repair your eyesight, which allows you to go back to racing cars at La Sarthe, wouldn't you value this "service" quite highly?

By immaterial exchange, it means I give you money, and you give me something that I can't trade (you can't trade away a haircut or the plumbing performed on your house, or the oil change done on your car, or the degree you received in school). (But you could trade away the food you receive from food places, although that's still considered a service).

 

[GTsail]

By immaterial exchange, it means I give you money, and you give me something that I can't trade (you can't trade away a haircut or the plumbing performed on your house, or the oil change done on your car, or the degree you received in school). (But you could trade away the food you receive from food places, although that's still considered a service).

I get what you are trying to say, but the definition is wrong, because the "value" of the service is certainly not immaterial.

And you can exchange/trade services:

Say the "service" was "dog walking"

You could exchange/trade this "dog walking" service with your neighbor who also happens to want their dogs walked today.

 

[polysmut]

And you can exchange/trade services:

Say the "service" was "dog walking"

You could exchange/trade this "dog walking" service with your neighbor who also happens to want their dogs walked today.

You could exchange an arrangement for that service to be performed.

Once the service has been performed there is no material from the transaction than can be traded again.

 

[ryzno]

You could exchange an arrangement for that service to be performed.

Once the service has been performed there is no material from the transaction than can be traded again.

Let's say I have a dog I want watched for a day. You need an oil change. We make a mutual agreement. No currency spent or made, but we both got something out of the deal. I don't see it as wealth though. We both did a service. Now in the consumer market we'd both have to pay regardless if we could help each other.

Get where I'm going?

 

[GTsail]

***
Once the service has been performed there is no material from the transaction than can be traded again.

This is mostly true, but some services have longer lives.

Say the "service" was investment advice: "Buy the stock of any Company that has the word "Apple" in its Company name"

You could use this "service" more than once, and you could even pass it along to a friend

 

[polysmut]

Let's say I have a dog I want watched for a day. You need an oil change. We make a mutual agreement. No currency spent or made, but we both got something out of the deal. I don't see it as wealth though. We both did a service. Now in the consumer market we'd both have to pay regardless if we could help each other.

Get where I'm going?

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.
I was trying to help to explain the meaning of the phrase "immaterial exchange of value".

Perhaps a better way to help would have been :

I get what you are trying to say, but the definition is wrong, because the "value" of the service is certainly not immaterial.

It's the exchange that is immaterial, not the value. With "immaterial" used in a context of meaning not material rather than meaning not important.

Edit :

This is mostly true, but some services have longer lives.

Say the "service" was investment advice: "Buy the stock of any Company that has the word "Apple" in its Company name"

You could use this "service" more than once, and you could even pass it along to a friend

That would be the service of passing on information rather than material, yes. Some services are material, some are immaterial.

I was trying to add clarity rather than weigh in. I don't want to distract from any of the points made, none of which were by me.

 

[GTsail]

***It's the exchange that is immaterial, not the value. With "immaterial" used in a context of meaning not material rather than meaning not important***

Yes, having the words "immaterial" and "value" squashed together in the definition is what causes me to pause.

I don't really have great definition either.

Maybe something like:
"A service is an economic activity where there is an exchange of intangible goods for value"

 

[polysmut]

Yes, having the words "immaterial" and "value" squashed together in the definition is what causes me to pause.

I don't really have great definition either.

Maybe something like:
"A service is an economic activity where there is an exchange of intangible goods for value"

I thought the Wikipedia definition was fairly clear & just rephrased it a bit for anyone who didn't see it clearly on first reading. Of course I could have misunderstood it completely.