Alas, emergencies have gotten my approach to pen-l back to the hit and run mode.
Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. a) the second one is _derived_ using ultra-simple math from the first (which is true by definition). This is obvious if we restate #2 as "rate of growth of employment of labor-power = (rate of growth of output) minus (rate of growth of labor-power productivity). (In this case, it should be remembered that when I originally referred to "output," I meant "output that's sold by capitalists on the market" and when I referred to "labor-power" I meant only that labor-power hired by capitalists. We're talking about capitalism. If we introduce the government into the picture (and ignore the way government is run these days), it's possible that labor-power employment could rise even though capitalist output is constant and labor-power productivity is rising. But I don't think that's what Tom is talking about.) b) the two equations are truly _identical_ only if the rates of growth are stated for very short periods of time. For longer periods of time, there's an interaction term. However, that does not change the point: if there is constant output (sold by capitalists on the market) and a positive growth rate of the productivity of labor-power, the capitalist employment of labor-power falls. > Not only is the "history of > economic thought totally irrelevant," even the history of Devine thought is > infinitely malleable. All I said was that the history of economic thought -- i.e., the role of Hicks' theories about labor markets in influencing Harrod's use of a tautologically-true equation -- is only irrelevant _in this case_. The history of thought is relevant in lots of other cases. Leaving out the phrase "Here's a case where" in my sentence "Here's a case where the history of economic thought is totally irrelevant" seems disingenuous, though it could have been done out of ignorance or carelessness instead. I don't know if the incoherent statement that "the history of Devine thought is infinitely malleable" is an insult or not. Please explain. If Tom wants to make this whole discussion personal, that's fine. But such behavior is a poor substitute for reasoned argument. > I suppose we'll hear again "that's not true" because Jim doesn't think pen-l > should have untrue statements!< As Tom should know, I only say "that's not true" if I think my statement can be backed up by factual or logical argument. Tom has his own blog. He can state all the untruths he wants to on that venue. It's a free country, after all. -- 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
