RE: theoretical soup

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

Lowe had an interesting little paper on value theory where he asked,
"Suppose a universal amnesia were to wipe out the knowledge of all
present prices, would there be a rule for reestablishing them?" He then
looked at both neoclassical marginalist (utility) theory and
classical/Marxian (labor theory of) value theory and concluded that
there is neither case any way to establish prices without reference to
*history*.  This does seem to put a bit of a historical
school/institutionalist what jim called 'empiricist' slant on it.*

mat

*a former student at the New School who shall remain nameless told me
that Lowe had bumped his head in an accident and then wrote this paper.
I have no idea if that is true or what the implications are supposed to
be.

DD continues:>But I don't see how saying "I'm an institutionalist" gets
you
off the hook here.  That's not a value theory, and neither Robinson nor
Kalecki have either a way of telling us how to measure the capital stock
without a value theory, or a value theory which is not fundamentally the
equivalent of the LTV (I accept your point about a glass being
half-empty or
half full, but surely to heavens, any theory which accepts that value is
only produced by labour is a labour theory of value; I've never
understood
why Robinson claimed that she didn't accept LTV).<

etc.