> > > >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).
I haven't worked it out--I'm not an economist, and I'm not even an academic any more, I'm just a lawyer--but I have a sketch of a two-factor theory, recognizing labor contribution and demand as dual sources of value. > >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. No, no. It's institutionalist and realistic. > >I'm sure I don't understand your position properly, and I bet that reading >those two papers will help. Maybe. They onlya ddress VT by the by, WWWE is more on point. 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. Humnph. jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
