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)?
maybe, but the equation (rate of growth of output = rate of growth of labor productivity + rate of growth of employment) is in no way dependent on Hicks or Robbins or Chapman. Here's a case where the history of economic thought is totally irrelevant. > Or does the fact that it is part of Harrod's trump all questions about > whether it is in fact static or dynamic. No, I don't believe in appeal to authority. -- 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
