The measurement of the capital stock is in impossibility. Franklin Fisher once worked up the requirements for aggregation. Can't be done!
The inability to calculate real depreciation presents another barrier. I mentioned this in passing before in questioning how seriously we should take estimates of profit rates as anything more than a rough rule of thumb. On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:59:36PM -0000, Davies, Daniel wrote: > > >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. > ___________________________________________________ > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
