Dear James:
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I agree: Marx was deliberately abstracting in a
way that (he thought) reflected the actual
process under capitalism. In my very short précis, I
was only summarizing one part of his
approach and its actual application. I was in no way
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Marx abstraction [was Query: critique of production
functions -clarification-]
Dear James:
On Marx's use of abstraction in Capital I you wrote:
In order to understand
capitalist production in volume I, he
]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Marx abstraction [was Query: critique of production
functions -clarification-]
Dear James:
On Marx's use of abstraction in Capital I you wrote:
In order to understand
capitalist production in volume I, he
Dear Matías:
Nowhere did I say that the production function describes the value equation.
I said instead that it refers to the material substratum of the
capitalist value equation. The material substratum of value is use value.
By physical inputs I mean concrete labor power and means of
/~jdevine
-Original Message-
From: Matías Scaglione [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 4:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions
-clarification-
Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference
to Shaikh's
What production function do we reject? And on what grounds?
IMO, Anwar Shaikh's claim is that fitting an homothetic production function
on aggregate data is arbitrary. As they'd say in econometrics, there's an
identification problem because such data don't allow to single out the
parameters.
Dear James:
On Marx's use of abstraction in Capital I you wrote:
In order to understand
capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately
and clearly abstracts from the differences among
heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and
means of production. He uses the acid of
Dear Julio:
The line of my argument is very similar to the comment
I sent to James Devine.
You wrote:
As Jim Devine wrote, Marx's description of the
process of production in
Capital (vol. I, part III) is akin to this idea.
After all, the material
substratum of the capitalist value equation,
I am trying to write a review of critiques of the
concept of production function. I would appreciate
suggestions about works critisizing the very concept
of production function, not merely internal logical
flaws or empirical contradictions. For instance, I
am interested in Marxian refutations
: critique of production functions
I am trying to write a review of critiques of the
concept of production function. I would appreciate
suggestions about works critisizing the very concept
of production function, not merely internal logical
flaws or empirical contradictions. For instance, I
am
Here is the article Michael and Jurriaan suggested, in downloadable form:
http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/humbug2.pdf
ahmet tonak
Michael Perelman wrote:
Shaikh, AM, (1974). "Laws of Algebra and Laws of Production: The
Humbug Production Function", Review of Economics and
He actually wrote two articles on it. Maybe in the New Palgrave dictionary
of economics, or another dictionary ?
J.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Query: critique
http://growthconf.ec.unipi.it/papers/Felipe.pdf
AGGREGATION IN PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS:
WHAT APPLIED ECONOMISTS SHOULD KNOW
Abstract: This paper surveys the theoretical literature on aggregation of
production functions (e.g.,
Klein, Leontief, Nataf, Gorman, Fisher, Sato, etc.) from the point of view
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions
Shaikh, AM, (1974). "Laws of Algebra and Laws of Production: The
Humbug Production Function", Review of Economics and Statistics,
61: 115-20. (1980).
Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference
to Shaikh's work. I should have warned you that I knew
this paper, and that the very few critiques of
productions functions I have found led to this paper.
As I mentioned in my first mail, I am now not looking
for immanent critiques of
, but he considered her strategy
wasn't very good. The pay was good though.
Jurriaan
- Original Message -
From: Matías Scaglione [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:32 AM
Subject: [PEN-L] Query: critique of production functions -clarification
16 matches
Mail list logo
