>I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist >with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice.
Must make for some interesting dinner parties .... But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets you off the hook here. That's not a value theory, and neither Robinson nor Kalecki have either a way of telling us how to measure the capital stock without a value theory, or a value theory which is not fundamentally the equivalent of the LTV (I accept your point about a glass being half-empty or half full, but surely to heavens, any theory which accepts that value is only produced by labour is a labour theory of value; I've never understood why Robinson claimed that she didn't accept LTV). And in the context of capital and value theory , "Austrian" isn't a dash of spice; it's arsenic soup. It's a marginal theory of value, which hangs you right back on the hook that you got off with general equilibrium. I'm sure I don't understand your position properly, and I bet that reading those two papers will help. But I think it's clear that there are many good technical reasons to suppose that economics needs *some* value theory, and the labour theory of value shapes up pretty well compared to the competition. dd ___________________________________________________ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___________________________________________________
