I think this part of the debate is going around in circles. Can we move on?
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > Surely, then you can riddle me this, then, Jim: didn't Harrod either > explicitly or implicitly rely on Hicks's (The Theory of Wages, 1932) > work-around of the difficulty posed by Chapman's equation, also acknowledged > by Lionel Robbins ("The economic effects of variations of hours of labor," > 1929)? > > Because if he did, then his equation is only true in the sense that it > assumes away the cases where it would be false. Since Hicks's work-around > involved the assumption that unions would be strong enough to enforce > work-time reductions by strike action in the event (not unlikely according > to the Chapman theory) that the given hours of work were NOT optimal for > output, it would be plausible to imagine that the Hicks assumption may not > prevail in the U.S.A. today. > > If he didn't use Hicks's wriggle, how did he get around the problem of > indeterminacy addressed by Hicks and Robbins? I also understand that Hicks > later disavowed his 1937 mathematical interpretation of Keynes as too static > and unhistorical. Does Hicks's disavowal have any effect on dynamic > applicability of Harrod's equation? > > Or does the fact that it is part of Harrod's trump all questions about > whether it is in fact static or dynamic. > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > -- > Sandwichman > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
