No, Michael, we can't "move on", we can only go around in circles, which is how the "fatwa" you were unaware existed works.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM, michael perelman < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
