On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> > a) the second one is _derived_ using ultra-simple math from the first > (which is true by definition). That's cute. The math is "ultra simple." So you can just present one equation one time and a different one another time, say they are the same and anybody who doesn't read your mind about the ultra-simple derivation is, by definition, stupid. 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). > Oh, how silly of me not to notice! > 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. > Thanks for that aside, considering that the dispute was about whether the first equation applied to both the short run and two period cases. So let me get this straight, the two equations are identical except in the situation under dispute, in which case "there's an interaction term." I'll defer to Jim's knowledge of his own math and just point out that there is a lot of definitional wiggle room in the terms, chief among them being why is the quantity in one equation "hours" and in another "employment"? What is the relationship in the two equations between hours per employee and effort per hour? Nothing that you have presented so far, Jim, indicates that the two equations, which you attribute to Harrod, address those definitional questions. Now it may be that Harrod addressed those questions and you are assuming that anyone with half a brain would know that. But I suspect not. I suspect that Harrod's equations (if that's indeed what they are) are true by definition because they have excluded the issue of variability of hours and in that case the history of economic thought is totally relevant here. In fact, it's more relevant that the identity or otherwise of the two equations. As I pointed out before both Lionel Robbins and John Hicks acknowledged the difficulty posed by the Chapman theory to the problem of determining the return on various factors of production. They proposed "provisional" simplifying assumptions to the problem that were supposed to be restricted to a first approximation. Chris Nyland called special attention to this in his book, that I mentioned and I've gone through Nyland's argument step by step in the original texts and pointed out relatively minor errors in Nyland's presentation. Now you're telling me all that doesn't matter in this case because it's an identity that's true by definition. That is only plausible if Harrod explicitly addressed the duration/intensity dilemma that Chapman introduced (and which Marx emphasized in Capital). That leaves you with a very clear and easy to answer question. Did Harrod directly address the duration/intensity issue or did he not. If he did please present the appropriate citation. If he didn't then all your insistence about true by definition tautologies is irrelevant bluster. Show me the money. -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
