Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > . I have constructed spreadsheets that use Chapman's theory to > test the kind of hypotheses that Jim Devine appears capable of deciding by > pulling answers out of the air: "if the productivity per hour of labor-power > hired rises, in situations of low aggregate demand such as the present > capitalists will cut the number of hours of labor-power hired unless there > is also an increase in demand and thus real production..."
that's not "out of thin air." What I said was true by definition. in response, Tom writes: > This NOT true because it imposes a > static short run constraint on a dynamic two-period model. that's not true. The equation is true whether it's a static short-run story or a dynamic one. It's part of Harrod's theory of growth. > To put it in > technical language, you are invoking not only the wages-fund doctrine but > the Harriet Martineau/John Weston rendition of the wages-fund doctrine. this true-by-definition equation has nothing to do with Martineau or Weston since it says nothing about wages or the wages fund. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
