1. total hours of labor-power employed = (output sold)/(output/hours employed)
2. rate of growth of output = rate of growth of labor productivity + rate of growth of employment One of these things is not like the other. Not only is the "history of economic thought totally irrelevant," even the history of Devine thought is infinitely malleable. I suppose we'll hear again "that's not true" because Jim doesn't think pen-l should have untrue statements! On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
